ABA TECHREPORT – Law Technology Todayhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org
From the ABA Legal Technology Resource CenterMon, 04 Feb 2019 15:27:51 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.3TECHREPORT 2018: Virtual Law Practicehttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/02/techreport-2018-virtual-law-practice/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/02/techreport-2018-virtual-law-practice/#respondMon, 04 Feb 2019 14:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=9585Is a virtual law practice right for you? And how do you start one? Get some insight with this TECHREPORT.

]]>Welcome to the Third Annual Chad’s Thoughts on the State of Virtual Law Practice in connection with the ABA Legal Technology Survey Report. In 2016, we looked at the data and talked about mobility and fun stuff like that. In 2017, we explored the question, “Isn’t a virtual law practice just how a modern law firm should be run?” So, for the 2018 Survey, I wanted to address the topic in a fresh way.

Let’s be super practical and go through ideas for starting a new virtual law practice in 2019. The role technology can have in helping carry out the mission, vision, and values for a firm—especially for virtual or distributed model law firms—is pretty fascinating. Regardless, at the end of the day, the issues are just like a “normal” or traditional firm. That is a core issue to remember: That while the term “virtual” sounds fancy, it still refers to a modern way to run a law practice.

There are some things that won’t be addressed this year that I think are still relevant. Read the overview of the 2018 Survey. There are interesting issues concerning age and gender that need to be considered. I discussed those factors a bit last year and not much has changed. You can draw your own conclusions from the data.

On to the show…

Where to Start?

Often when people ask how to create a virtual law practice, they think it sounds easy but haven’t thought through what that means. Like any business, you need to understand your client base. Who are you going to serve? What practice areas are in your sweet spot?

The new firm for this exercise serves two practice areas: family law and civil litigation. Naturally, the family law clients are individuals while the litigation clients are a mix of businesses and individuals. This matters because you need to think about what technology you are going use for communication purposes and what type of office space do you need, among other things.

Office Space

Lawyers have often commented that if they have consumer clients, such as those going through a divorce, a virtual environment is not ideal. They feel that a traditional office space is a must. This is not always true. There are several ways to meet with clients that do not involve talking at a Starbucks, potentially divulging client secrets. Flexible office space options, like Regus, are great options to meet with existing or potential clients on an as-needed basis. You can pay a lower amount per month than traditional office space, including by the hour. This allows for the use of office space to scale as you have more client meetings.

Regarding business clients, the same holds true. Plus, you can go to the business owner’s headquarters to meet with them. I used to do that often. First, it is convenient for the client, and, second, it is an opportunity to get new work from the client. You may show up for one matter, but because they see other work on their desk, they can hand it off to you.

Check out the data. The litigation and family law practice areas were significant contributors.

While the majority of lawyers report using traditional offices leased or owned exclusively by their law firms (60%), other options include a home office or traditional office space shared with one or more other businesses. There is also the option to take a hybrid approach—use of traditional office space and virtual space to expand into other geographic areas.

And what do you need to practice law out of these venues? How about a laptop, tablet, and/or smartphone? That, plus a solid cloud-based practice management software, will let you work anywhere. You can bounce around from office space to client sites to Regus and keep working.

The 2018 Survey shows that lawyers “regularly” use their mobile devices (e.g., laptop, smartphone, or tablet device) for law-related tasks in a variety of different locations anyway: the courtroom (16.5%), airport (22.5%), hotel (29%), and in transit (e.g., car, train, or airplane) (28%).

This may seem pretty basic, but the point is that really any lawyer can work from anywhere. It is not hard to be a mobile lawyer in 2019. You can be as mobile as you want to be.

Thinking About Intake

In starting a new virtual practice, one area that cannot be overlooked is the focus on intake and effectively getting new clients in the door. Now, most lawyers recognize the need to get new clients, but the sales process is not something that comes naturally. Leveraging an intake system is important for mobile lawyers and is in line with the general philosophy of running a modern firm. This is true regardless of whether you are representing consumer or business clients. Here are some ideas:

Get potential clients to a human. Whether you have a virtual receptionist service, like Ruby Receptionists or Smith, answer your phones or have an effective auto-attendant; new clients need to talk with someone as quickly as possible. This is true for virtual firms. You also need an intake specialist who is trained in sales and has the ability to sign up the potential client for a consultation as quickly as possible. You work remotely, which means your intake team can as well.

You have the technology in place to manage those services. You can give them access to your case management software if need be. You will statistically have a mobile phone glued to your hand and can keep tabs on new consultations.

Track the data related to intake. This is important. Effectively tweaking your intake so that it results in more clients can be a huge difference in meeting your revenue goals.

Using Technology to Cultivate a Team

This is the hardest part of running a firm, so it is good to save for last. Regardless of the type of firm (old/stodgy or shiny/virtual), the human component can be challenging. This is especially true when growing a distributed team. If you are not in the office together all the time, maintaining positive relationships takes extra effort. This is not a bad thing, you just need to be aware of it.

The technology highlighted in the 2018 Survey can be helpful to manage these relationships. You have mobile devices and computers, so all you need is to regularly use collaboration tools, including video conferencing (Zoom, Hangouts, etc.), Slack, and project/case management tools that keep work flowing.

Now, the technology is helpful, but you need to be present with your team. Have regular one-on-ones with each team member (if feasible, depending on the size of the firm), organize the firm in teams so that they can work closely with one another regardless of their physical location, and regularly share Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with members of the firm when you gather for weekly, monthly, and quarterly meetings via video. This last point is key (sorry for the pun).

Being a data-driven firm and sharing KPIs with your crew will keep everyone on the same page. If the firm is working toward the same goals, then they will be more invested in the organization. This is a process issue that is supported by technology. Both are critical. You can have all the fancy technology in the world, but if it is not being used effectively then you are losing.

Let’s Wrap This Up

So, it seems like I didn’t talk about the 2018 Survey results regarding mobility as much as one would think when starting a new virtual law firm. You know why? Because none of it should be surprising. People use mobile devices. They use what they prefer. Some people prefer tablets over laptops and vice versa. Great. Use what you prefer and focus on running a solid law firm business model. Implement virtual/mobile/distributed best practices. Don’t do it just for fun. Do it because it makes your practice more effective, your client’s rates cheaper, and maybe even because it makes you a happier person.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/02/techreport-2018-virtual-law-practice/feed/0TECHREPORT 2018: Cybersecurityhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/01/techreport-2018-cybersecurity/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/01/techreport-2018-cybersecurity/#respondMon, 28 Jan 2019 14:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=9584The FBI has reported that law firms are often viewed as “one-stop shops” for attackers. In this TECHREPORT, find out cybersecurity measures lawyers are (or are not) taking.

]]>Security breaches are so prevalent that there is a new mantra in cybersecurity today—it’s “when, not if” a law firm or other entity will suffer a breach. In an address at a major information security conference in 2012, then-FBI director Robert Mueller put it this way:

“I am convinced that there are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be. And even they are converging into one category: companies that have been hacked and will be hacked again.”

Mueller’s observation continues to be true today for attorneys and law firms as well as for small businesses through large global companies. There have been numerous reports for over a decade of law firm data breaches in the popular and legal press—print and online. The FBI has reported that law firms are often viewed as “one-stop shops” for attackers (with information on multiple clients) and it has seen hundreds of law firms being increasingly targeted by hackers. Law firm breaches have ranged from simple (like those resulting from a lost or stolen laptop or mobile device) to highly sophisticated (like the deep penetration of a law firm network, with access to everything, for a year or more).

New York Ethics Opinion 1019 warned attorneys in May 2014 about this threat environment:

“Cyber-security issues have continued to be a major concern for lawyers, as cyber-criminals have begun to target lawyers to access client information, including trade secrets, business plans and personal data. Lawyers can no longer assume that their document systems are of no interest to cyber-crooks.”

“At the same time, the term ‘cybersecurity’ has come into existence to encompass the broad range of issues relating to preserving individual privacy from intrusion by nefarious actors throughout the Internet. Cybersecurity recognizes a … world where law enforcement discusses hacking and data loss in terms of ‘when,’ and not ‘if.’ Law firms are targets for two general reasons: (1) they obtain, store and use highly sensitive information about their clients while at times utilizing safeguards to shield that information that may be inferior to those deployed by the client, and (2) the information in their possession is more likely to be of interest to a hacker and likely less voluminous than that held by the client.”

Most recently, ABA Formal Opinion 483, “Lawyers’ Obligations After an Electronic Data Breach or Cyberattack” (October 17, 2018) starts with the following observations about current threats:

“Data breaches and cyber threats involving or targeting lawyers and law firms are a major professional responsibility and liability threat facing the legal profession. As custodians of highly sensitive information, law firms are inviting targets for hackers. In one highly publicized incident, hackers infiltrated the computer networks at some of the country’s most well-known law firms, likely looking for confidential information to exploit through insider trading schemes. Indeed, the data security threat is so high that law enforcement officials regular regularly divide business entities into two categories: those that have been hacked and those that will be.”

The ABA’s 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report explores security threats and incidents and safeguards that reporting attorneys and their law firms are using to protect against them. As in past years, it shows that many attorneys and law firms are employing some of the safeguards covered in the questions and generally increasing use of the safeguards over time. However, it also shows that many are not using security measures that are viewed as basic by security professionals and are used more frequently in other businesses and professions.

Some attorneys and law firms may not be devoting more attention and resources to security because they mistakenly believe “it won’t happen to me.” The increasing threats to attorneys and law firms and the reports of security breaches should dispel this mistaken viewpoint. Significantly, 23% of respondents overall reported this year that their firm had experienced a data breach at some time.

Data security is addressed most directly in 2018 Survey, “Volume I: Technology Basics & Security.” It is further addressed in “Volume IV: Marketing and Communications Technology,” and “Volume VI: Mobile Lawyers.” This TECHREPORT reviews responses to the security questions in this year’s Survey and discusses them in light of both attorneys’ duty to safeguard information and standard information security practices. Each volume includes a Trend Report, which breaks down the information by size of firm and compares it to prior years, followed by sections with more detailed information on survey responses. This gives attorneys and law firms (and clients) information to compare their security posture to law firms of similar size.

Attorneys’ Duty to Safeguard Information

The ethics rules require attorneys to take competent and reasonable measures to safeguard information relating to clients (ABA Model Rules 1.1 and 1.6 and Comments). These duties are covered in these rules and comments and in the recent ethics opinions like the ones discussed above. Attorneys also have common law duties to protect client information and often have contractual and regulatory obligations to protect information relating to clients and other personally identifiable information, like health and financial information. These duties present a challenge to attorneys using technology because most are not technologists and often lack training and experience in security. Compliance requires attorneys to understand limitations in their knowledge and obtain sufficient information to protect client information, to get qualified assistance if necessary, or both. These obligations are minimum standards—failure to comply with them may constitute unethical or unlawful conduct. Attorneys should aim for security that goes beyond these minimums as a matter of sound professional practice and client service.

Recognizing the Risk

Information security starts with an inventory and risk assessment to determine what needs to be protected and the threats that it faces. The inventory should include both technology and data. You can’t protect it if you don’t know that you have it and where it is.

Comment [18] to Model Rule 1.6 includes a risk-based approach to determine reasonable measures that attorneys should employ. The first two factors in the analysis are “the sensitivity of the information” and “the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed.” This analysis should include a review of security incidents that an attorney or law firm has experienced and those experienced by others—generally and in the legal profession. The 2018 Survey includes information about threats in its questions about security breaches.

The next factors in the risk analysis cover available safeguards. Comment [18] to Model Rule 1.6 includes them in the risk analysis for attorneys for determining what is reasonable:

“…the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use).”

Comment [18] uses a risk-based approach that is now standard in information security. The 2018 Survey includes information about the available safeguards that various attorneys and firms are using.

The 2018 Survey reports that about 23% of respondents overall reported that their firms had experienced a security breach at some point. The question is not limited to the past year, it’s “ever.” A breach broadly includes incidents like a lost/stolen computer or smartphone, hacker, break-in, or website exploit. This compares with 22% last year, 14% in 2016, 15% in 2015, 14% in 2014, and 15% in 2013—an increase of 8% in 2017 after being basically steady from 2013 through 2016.

This year, the reported percentage of firms experiencing a breach generally increased with firm size, ranging from 14% of solos, 24% of firms with 2-9 attorneys, about 24% for firms with 2-9 and 10-49, 42% with 50-99, and about 31% with 100+. As noted above, this is for firms who have experienced a breach ever, not just in the past year.

Larger firms have more people, more technology, and more data, so there is a greater exposure surface, but they also should have more resources to protect them. It is difficult to tell the completeness of larger firm’s responses on breaches because the percentage of those reporting that they “don’t know” about breaches (18% overall) directly goes up with firm size—reaching 57% in firms with 100-499 attorneys and 61% in firms with 500+. This makes sense because attorneys in medium and large firms may not learn about security incidents that don’t impact the entire firm, particularly minor incidents and ones at remote offices.

The majority of respondents—60%—reported that their firm had not experienced a breach in the past. Hopefully, this does not include firms that have experienced a security breach and never detected it. Another common saying in security today is that there are two kinds of companies: Those that have been breached and know it, and those that have been breached but don’t know it. The same is likely true for law firms.

The most serious consequence of a security breach for a law firm would most likely be unauthorized access to sensitive client data (although the loss of data would also be very serious). The 2018 Survey shows a very low incidence of this result for firms that experienced a breach—about 6% overall, up from 1% last year. The reports of unauthorized access to sensitive client data by firms that experienced a breach is 11% for solos (up from none last year); 6-8% for firms with 2-9, 10-49, and 50-99; none reported for firms with 100+. While the percentages are low, any exposure of client data can be a major disaster for a law firm and its clients.

The information on breaches with exposure of client data is incomplete because almost 7% overall report that they don’t know about the consequences, with “don’t know” responses increasing from none for solos to 38% for firms of 500+. The uncertainty is increased by the high percentage of respondents (18%), discussed above, who don’t even know whether their firm experienced a data breach.

Unauthorized access to non-client sensitive data is 6% overall, with 8% for solos, 5% for firms with 2-9, 10% for firms with 10-49, 8% for firms with 50-99, 5% for firms of 100-499, and none for firms with 500+.

The other reported consequences of data breaches are significant. Downtime/loss of billable hours was reported by 41% of respondents; consulting fees for repair were reported by 40%; destruction or loss of files by 11%, and replacement of hardware/software reported by 27% (percentages for firms that experienced breaches). Any of these could be very serious, particularly for solos and small firms that may have limited resources to recover. No significant business disruption or loss was reported by 65% overall.

About 9% overall responded that they notified a client or clients of the breach. The percentage reporting notice to clients ranges from 11% for solos, 8% for firms with 2-9, 7% for firms with 10-49, 17% for firms with 50-99, none for firms with 100-499 and 19% for firms with 500+. This is equal to or in excess of the reported incidence of unauthorized access to client data for firms of each size, consistent with the view that ethical and common law obligations require notice to clients.

Overall, 14% of respondents that experienced a breach reported that they gave notice to law enforcement, ranging from 13% for solos, 10% with 2-9 attorneys, 20% of firms with 10-49, 25% of firms with 50-99, 5% of firms with 100-499 attorneys to 25% of firms with 500+.

The 2018 Survey also inquired whether respondents ever experienced an infection with viruses/spyware/malware. Overall, 40% reported infections, 37% reported none, and 23% reported that they don’t know. Reported infections were greatest in firms with 10-49 attorneys (57%) and 2- 9 (48%), and lowest in firms with 500+ (20%). Infections can cause serious consequences, including compromise of confidentiality and loss of data. With over one third of respondents reporting infections (down from almost half last year), strong safeguards to protect against them, including up to date security software, using current versions of operating systems and software, promptly applying patches to the operating system and all application software, effective backup, and training of attorneys and staff are clearly warranted.

Security Programs and Policies

At the ABA Annual Meeting in August, 2014, the ABA adopted a resolution on cybersecurity that “encourages all private and public sector organizations to develop, implement, and maintain an appropriate cybersecurity program that complies with applicable ethical and legal obligations and is tailored to the nature and scope of the organization and the data and systems to be protected.” The organizations covered by it include law firms.

A security program should address people, policies and procedures, and technology. All three areas are necessary for an effective program. Security should not be left solely to IT staff and tech consultants. In addition to measures to prevent security incidents and breaches, there has been a growing recognition that security includes the full spectrum of measures to identify and protect information assets and to detect, respond to, and recover from data breaches and security incidents. Security programs should cover all of these functions.

An important initial step in establishing an information security program is defining responsibility for security. The program should designate an individual or individuals responsible for coordinating security—someone must be in charge. It should also define everyone’s responsibility for security, from the managing partner or CEO to support staff.

While a dedicated, full-time Chief Information Security Officer is generally only appropriate (and affordable) for larger law firms, every firm should have someone who is responsible for coordinating security. The larger the firm, the more necessary it is to have a full-time security officer or someone who is to dedicate an appropriate part of their time and effort to security. The 2018 Survey asks who has primary responsibility for security in respondents’ firms. As expected, responses vary by size of firm. The respondent has primary responsibility in solo firms (84%), the respondent or an external consultant/expert in firms of 2-9 attorneys (27% and 33%, respectively); IT staff for firms of 10-49 attorneys (41%) and 50-99 (47%), a chief information officer in firms of 100-499 (56%) and firms of 500+ (62%). A small percentage (2%) report that nobody has primary responsibility for security—a high-risk situation.

The 2018 Survey asks respondents about a variety of technology-related policies, rather than about an overall comprehensive information security program. Attorneys and law firms should view these kinds of policies as part of a coordinated program rather than individually.

According to the 2018 Survey, 53% of respondents report that their firms have a policy to manage the retention of information/data held by the firm, 50% report a policy on email use, 44% for internet use, 41% for computer acceptable use, 37% remote access, 38% for social media, 21% personal technology use/BYOD, and 32% for employee privacy. The numbers generally increase with firm size. For example, about 33% of solo respondents report having an information/data retention policy, increasing to 51% in firms with 2-9, 60% with 10-49, 77% with 50-99, and approximately 90% in 100+ attorneys.

Two responses that raise a major security concern are those that report having no policies (29% overall) and those reporting that they don’t know about security policies (7%). There is a clear trend by firm size in the responses of having no policies. There are no respondents in firms of 100+ attorneys reporting none. The percentage with none generally decreases by firm size, ranging from 3% of firms with 50-99, 6% with 10-49, 25% in firms with 2-9, to 58% of responding solos. While it is understandable that solos and smaller firms may not appreciate the need for policies, all firms should have policies, appropriately scaled to the size of the firm and the sensitivity of the data.

Incident response is a critical element of an information security program. Overall, 25% report having an incident response plan. The percentage of respondents reporting that they have incident response plans varies with firm size, ranging from 9% for solos and 16% for firms with 2-9 to approximately 70% forms with 100+. As with a comprehensive security program, all attorneys and law firms should have an incident response plan scaled to the size of the firm. For solos and small firms, it may just be a checklist plus who to call for what, but they should have a basic plan.

Security awareness is a key to effective security. There cannot be effective security if users are not trained and do not understand the threats, how to protect against them, and the applicable security policies. Obviously, they can’t understand policies if they don’t even know whether their law firm has any policies.

In accordance with the ABA resolution on cybersecurity programs (and generally accepted security practices), all attorneys and law firms should have security programs tailored to the size of the firm and the data and systems to be protected. They should include training and constant security awareness.

Security Assessments and Client Requirements

Clients are increasingly focusing on the information security of law firms representing them and using approaches like required third-party security assessments, security requirements, and questionnaires.

The increased use of security assessments conducted by independent third parties has been a growing security practice for businesses and enterprises generally. Law firms have been slow to adopt this security tool, with only 28% of law firms overall reporting that they had a full assessment, but it increased from 27% last year and 18% in 2017. Affirmative responses generally increase by size of firm.

Third-party assessments are often conducted for law firms only when a client requests it or requires it. Overall, 11% report that a client or prospective client has requested an audit or other review. The percentage of firms reporting a client request gradually goes up by size of firm, from 2% for solos to 39% for firms of 500+.

Overall, 34% of respondents report that they have received a client security requirements document or guidelines. Firms receiving them generally increase by size of firm, from 15% of solos to about 66% with 100+ attorneys. There is a growing recognition in the information security profession of the importance of securing data that business partners and service providers can access, process, and store. This includes law firms. In March of 2017, the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) published the Model Information Protection and Security Controls for Outside Counsel Possessing Company Confidential Information that provides a list of baseline security measures and controls that legal departments can consider in developing requirements for outside counsel. Attorneys and law firms are likely to continue to face increasing client requirements for security.

Cyber Insurance

As the headlines continue to be filled with reports of data breaches, including law firms, there has been a growing recognition of the need for cyber insurance. Many general liability and malpractice policies do not cover security incidents or data breaches. The percentage of attorneys reporting that they have cyber liability coverage is small but has been increasing—34% overall (up from 27% in 2017, 17% in 2016, and 11% in 2015). It gradually increases from 27% for solos to about 35-45% for midsize firms, then drops to 23% for firms of 500+. In addition to cyber liability insurance, covering liability to third parties, there is also coverage available for first-party losses to the law firm (like lost productivity, data restoration, and technical and legal expenses). A review of the need for cyber insurance coverage should be a part of the risk assessment process for law firms of all sizes.

Security Standards and Frameworks

A growing number of law firms are using information security standards and frameworks, like those published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Center for Internet Security (CIS). They provide consensus approaches to a comprehensive information security program. Some firms use them as guidelines for their security programs, while a smaller group of firms seek formal security certification. The 2018 Survey asks whether respondents’ firms have received a security certification. Overall, only 9% report that they have received certification, with a low of 3% for solos and a high of 27% for firms with 500+.

Authentication and Access Control

Authentication and access controls are the first lines of defense. They are the “keys to the kingdom”—controlling access to networks, computers, and mobile devices.

The 2018 Survey includes a general question about mandatory passwords without specifying the access for which they are required. Overall, 68% of respondents report using mandatory passwords. They are required by 53% of solos, 71% of firms of 2-10 attorneys, and about 80% or higher for larger firms. This question does not ask about other forms of authentication like fingerprints or facial recognition. Some form of strong authentication should be required for access to computers and networks for all attorneys and all law firms.

For laptops, a strong majority of responding attorneys—nearly all—report that they use access controls. Overall, 98% report using passwords, with 99% for solos, 98% for firms of 2-9 attorneys, 94% for firms of 10-49, and firms of 50-500+ at 100%. In addition, 19% overall report using other authentication, which would include fingerprint readers, facial recognition, and other alternatives. While this might suggest that all attorneys use some form of access control (98% + 19%), that is not the case. About 1% report that they use none of the listed laptop security measures. The response of “none” only includes solos and firms 10-49 attorneys. As noted above, larger firms report 100% use of passwords for laptops.

Use of authentication controls on smartphones is similar to those on laptops. Reported use of passwords is 92% overall—generally increasing with firm size from 87% for solos to 100% for firms of 500+. Firms of other sizes range from about 90% to 99%. Use of other authentication is 40% overall, while 5% reporting none of the listed security measures.

For both laptops and smartphones (as well as other mobile and portable devices), all attorneys should be using strong passwords or other strong authentication.

Most, if not all, attorneys need multiple passwords for a number of devices, networks, services, and websites—for both work and personal use. It is recommended that users have a different, strong password for each device, network, service, and website. While password standards are evolving—stressing length over complexity—it is very difficult, or impossible, to remember numerous passwords. Password management tools allow a user to remember a single, strong password for the tool or locker with automatic access to the others. Respondents report that 24% overall use password management tools. 16% report that they don’t know. It is unlikely that respondents who don’t know are using these tools because a user would have to know that they are using a single password to access others. There is some difference in use by size of firm, ranging from a low of 16% for firms with 50-99 attorneys to a high of 30% for firms with 100-499.

Encryption

Encryption is a strong security measure that protects data in storage (on computers, laptops, smartphones, tablets, and portable devices) and transmitted data (over wired and wireless networks, including email). Security professionals view encryption as a basic safeguard that should be widely deployed. It is increasingly being required by law for personal information, like health and financial information. The recent battle between the FBI and Apple and the current debate about mandated “backdoors” to encryption for law enforcement and national security show how strong encryption can be for protecting sensitive data. The 2018 Survey shows that use by attorneys of the covered encryption tools has been growing, but its use is limited.

Full-drive encryption provides strong protection for all of the data on a server, desktop, laptop, or portable device. The data is readable only when it is decrypted through use of the correct password or other access control. Respondents report an overall use of full-drive encryption of only 24% (up from 21% last year and 15% in 2016), ranging from 15% for solos to about 48% for firms of 100+, with percentages increasing by firm size. File encryption protects individual files rather than all the data on a drive or device. Reported use of file encryption is higher than full disk at 46% overall, ranging from 36% for solos to 72% in firms of 500+. This question is general and is not broken down in Volume I of the 2018 Survey by servers, desktops, laptops, smartphones, etc. As discussed below, all attorneys should use encryption on laptops, smartphones, and mobile devices. While some law firms are starting to encrypt desktops and firm servers, it is not yet a common practice.

Volume VI of the 2018 Survey has separate questions for laptops and smartphones. For laptops, 25% overall report using file/data encryption and 18% report using hard drive encryption. Both of these numbers are down slightly from last year. File/data protection relies on the user to encrypt individual files or to put sensitive information in an encrypted file or partition on the drive. Full-drive encryption provides broader protection because it protects all data on the drive. Use of full-drive encryption for laptops does not vary directly with firm size—reported use is 18% for solos, 13% for firms with 2-9, 26% for firms with 10-49, 18% of firms with 50-99, 30% of firms with 100-499, and only 15% of firms with 500+ attorneys.

The 2018 Survey also reported on additional security measures for laptops, like remote data wiping (12% overall) and tracking software (7% overall). These kinds of measures can provide additional security, but should not be a substitute for strong authentication and encryption.

Use of encryption on smartphones appears to be significantly under-reported by attorneys responding to the 2018 Survey, as in past years. Respondents report an overall use of encryption of smartphones by only 18%. However, 72% overall of attorneys who use smartphones for work report using iPhones and 94% report that they use password protection on their smartphones. On current iPhones, encryption is automatically enabled when a PIN or passcode is set. Google is also moving to automatic encryption with a PIN or swipe pattern for Android devices. It appears that many attorneys are using encryption on their smartphones without knowing it. Encryption can be that easy! Encryption of laptops may also be under-reported because it can be transparent to the user if it has been enabled or installed by a law firm’s IT staff or a technology consultant.

Verizon’s 2014 Data Breach Investigation Report concludes that “encryption is as close to a no-brainer solution as it gets” for lost or stolen devices. Attorneys who do not use encryption on laptops, smartphones, and portable devices should consider the question: Is failure to employ what many consider to be a no-brainer solution taking competent and reasonable measures?

Secure email is another safeguard with limited reported use by responding attorneys. Overall, 29% of respondents reported that they use encryption of email for confidential/privileged communications/documents sent to clients (down from 36% last year). This ranges from 19% for solos, gradually increasing to 70% with firms of 50-99 and 73% for firms of 500+. Firms of 100-499 are an exception, with only 47% reporting use of encryption for email. Another question asks about registered/secure email, which appears to also include encryption. Overall, 18% report using registered/secure email, increasing directly with firm size from 12% for solos to 36% for firms with 500+. If there is no overlap between this response and the use of encryption, the overall percentage using email security would be 47% overall, increasing with firm size to 100% of firms with 500+.

Email encryption has now become easy to use and inexpensive with commercial email services. Google and Yahoo, at least in part driven by the disclosures about NSA interception, announced in 2014 that they would be making encryption available for their email services. In its announcement, Google compared unencrypted email to a postcard and encryption as adding an envelope. This postcard analogy has been used by security professionals for years. Hopefully, the percentages of attorneys reporting that they have added the envelopes, where appropriate, will grow in future survey results.

During the last several years, some state ethics opinions have increasingly expressed the view that encryption of email may sometimes be required to comply with attorneys’ duty of confidentiality. On May 11, 2017, the ABA issued Formal Opinion 477, Securing Communication of Protected Client Information. The Opinion revisits attorneys’ duty to use encryption and other safeguards to protect email and electronic communications in light of evolving threats, developing technology, and available safeguards. It suggests a fact-based analysis and concludes “the use of un-encrypted routine email generally remains an acceptable method of lawyer-client communication,” but “particularly strong protective measures, like encryption, are warranted in some circumstances.” It notes that attorneys are required to use special security precautions, like encryption, “when required by an agreement with the client or by law, or when the nature of the information requires a higher degree of security.”

If encrypted email is not available, a strong level of protection can be provided by putting the sensitive information in an encrypted attachment instead of in the text of the email. In current versions of Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat, and WinZip, setting a password for the document encrypts it. While password protection of documents is not as strong as encryption of a complete email and attachments because it depends on the strength of the password, it is much more secure than no encryption. If this approach is used, it is important to securely provide the passwords or passphrase to the recipient(s), preferably through a different communication channel like a phone call or text message (and certainly not in the email used to send the document).

Overall, a low percentage of respondents report using password protection for documents. There is not a pattern by firm size, with a low of 12% reported by solos and a high of 35% reported by firms of 100-499.

It has now reached the point where all attorneys should generally understand encryption and have encryption available for use in appropriate circumstances.

Some Basic Security Tools

In addition to authentication and encryption, the 2018 Survey asks about various security tools that are available to responding attorneys. Most, if not all, of these tools are security basics that should be used by all attorneys and law firms.

The most common tool is the spam filter, used by 87% of respondents. This may be under-reported because most email service providers have at least basic spam filters. Spam filters can be a strong first line of defense against phishing (malicious emails that try to steal information or plant malware). Filters are only part of the defense that weeds out some phishing emails but are an important first step.

Other tools with high reported use include anti-spyware (80%), software-based firewalls (80%), antivirus for desktops/laptops (73%), for email (69%), for networks (66%), and hardware firewalls (57%). Use of intrusion detection and prevention systems is reported by about 33% of respondents overall. There has been a growing trend for a number of years to use security suites that combine some of these tools like malware protection, spyware protection, software firewalls, and basic intrusion protection in a single tool. Availability of the various security tools is generally stable across firms of all sizes, with increases for some of them with the size of the firm. For all of these security tools, the use by firms should be 100%. There is a generally low incidence of “don’t know” responses for these tools, about 7% overall.

Remote Access

Approximately 90% of respondents reported that they remotely access work assets other than email, like applications and files, consistent with today’s mobile practice of law. 39% report regular use of remote access, 31% report occasional use, and 19% report “seldom.” Reported use generally increases with firm size, reaching 68% for firms of 500+. Respondents report using the following security measures: web-based applications (42%), virtual private networks (VPNs) (37%), remote access software (30%), and other (10%). Security for remote access is critical because it can provide unauthorized access for outsiders (to the communication or network) if it is not properly secured with an encrypted communication connection and strong authentication. There is a growing practice of using multifactor authentication or two-step verification for authentication in remote access. It requires a second method of authentication, in addition to a password, like a set of numbers transmitted to a smartphone or generated by an app. Multiple inexpensive and easy-to-use options are available.

Wireless Networks

Public wireless (WiFi) networks present a high-security risk, particularly if they are open, as in not requiring a password for connection. Without appropriate security measures, others connected to the network—both authorized users and attackers—may be able to intercept or view data and electronic communications transmitted over the network. The 2018 Survey asks about security measures that attorneys use when accessing public wireless networks. 31% report that they do not use public wireless networks. Overall, 38% report that they use a VPN (a technology that provides an encrypted connection over the internet or other networks), 20% report that they use remote access software, 15% report that they use website-provided SSL/HTTPS encryption, and 0.6% report using other security measures. The remaining 15% are living dangerously, reporting that they use none of the security measures.

Cell carriers’ data networks generally provide stronger security than public WiFi, either with access built into a smartphone, tablet, or laptop, or by using a smartphone, tablet, or separate device as a personal hotspot.

Up-to-date equipment and secure configuration (using encryption) are also important for a law firm and home wireless networks.

Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity

Threats to the availability of data can range from failure of a single piece of equipment to a major disaster like a fire or hurricane. An increasing threat to attorneys and law firms of all sizes is ransomware, generally spread through phishing. It encrypts a user’s or network’s data and demands ransom (to be paid by Bitcoin) for release of the decryption key. Effective backup, which is isolated from production networks, can provide timely recovery from ransomware.

Overall, 17% of respondents report that their firm had experienced a natural or man-made disaster, like a fire or flood. The highest incidence, about 32%, was in firms of 50-99 and 500+. The lowest reported incidence was for solos at 10%, with the rest were between these numbers. Disasters of this kind can put a firm out of business temporarily or permanently. These positive responses, from 10% to 32% of respondents, and the potentially devastating results demonstrate the importance for law firms of all sizes to be prepared to respond and recover.

Despite this clear need, only 40% overall of responding attorneys report that their firms have a disaster recovery/business continuity plan. Firms with a plan generally increase with the size of the firm, ranging from 22% of solos to over 85% of firms with 50-99 and 500+ attorneys. As with comprehensive security programs, all law firms should have a disaster recovery/business continuity plan, appropriately scaled to its size.

In the equipment failure area, 34% of respondents reported that their firm experienced a hard drive failure, while 44% reported that they did not. The remainder reported that they do not know, with the “don’t knows” increasing by firm size. In firms of 500+, 73% responded that they don’t know. In firms of 100-499, it was 61%. It is very likely that most large firms have suffered multiple hard drive failures, just not known by the individual responding attorneys. Even limiting the analysis to known hard drive failures, they have impacted about one-third of respondents. That’s a high risk, particularly considering the potential consequences of lost data, and all attorneys and law firms should implement backup and recovery measures.

Backup of data is critical for business continuity, particularly with the current epidemic of ransomware. Fortunately, most firms report that they employ some form of backup. Only 1.5% report that they don’t back up their computer files. 21% of respondents report that they don’t know about backup. The most frequently reported form of backup is external hard drives (38%), followed by offsite backup (30%), online backup (30%), network attached storage (15%), USB (9%), tape (7%), RAID (7%), CDs (4%), and DVDs (4%).

The 2018 Survey responses show that 49% of respondents back up once a day, 22% more than once a day, 11% weekly, 5% monthly, and 2% quarterly. 8% report that they don’t know, with unknowns increasing with firm size. Attorneys and firms that don’t back up on a daily basis, or more frequently, should reevaluate the risk in light of ransomware, hardware failures, disasters, and other incidents reported in the 2018 Survey.

Conclusion

The 2018 Survey provides a good overview, with supporting details, of what attorneys and law firms are doing to protect confidential information. Like the last several years, the data generally shows increasing attention to security and increasing use of the covered safeguards but also demonstrates that there is still a lot of room for improvement. Attorneys and law firms who are behind the reporting attorneys and firms on safeguards should evaluate their security posture to determine whether they need to do more to provide, at minimum, competent and reasonable safeguards—and hopefully more. Those who are in the majority on safeguards, or ahead of the curve, still need to review and update their security as new technology, threats, and available safeguards evolve over time. Effective security is an ongoing process, not just a “set it and forget it” effort. All attorneys and law firms should have appropriate comprehensive, risk-based security programs that include appropriate safeguards, training, periodic review and updating, and constant security awareness.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/01/techreport-2018-cybersecurity/feed/0What Is a Virtual Receptionist?https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/01/what-is-a-virtual-receptionist/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/01/what-is-a-virtual-receptionist/#respondMon, 21 Jan 2019 16:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=9583What if you were able to offer a client service experience that sets you apart while also focusing on the needs of your firm?

]]>Before the dawn of the digital age, there was only one way for law firms to connect with clients over the phone—someone had to physically pick up the receiver to answer the call.

Nowadays, between phone trees and auto-attendants, employees and practice owners don’t need to worry about a ringing phone and can rest assured that callers will have the pleasure of pressing “0” until their thumb falls off. Or hang up the moment they hear a recording on the other end of the line. And then return to their Google search, immediately clicking to call another attorney.

Ooh, plot twist.

While automation may be a game changer for efficiency, in today’s high-tech world, human interaction is more valuable than ever.

Which is good to know, but can you sacrifice the work you do to run your practice to answer every call that comes through?

Nope. You sure can’t.

But what if you were able to offer a client service experience that sets you apart, while also focusing on the needs of your firm?

At a fraction of the cost of an on-site employee, virtual receptionists come packing the same punch, plus a little extra. With the manpower of a full team at your service, 100% of your calls are answered, your receptionist is never sick, on vacation, or late, and every caller receives the same stellar service.

How do they do it?

A little bit of tech magic and loads of coffee.

While the above statement is absolutely true and I am tempted to just leave you with that, here is a quick break down of what this process looks like for you, your virtual receptionist, and your caller:

Prospective (or current) Client Calls: A caller dials your published number and the call rings through to your virtual receptionist service.

Warmly Greeted by a Receptionist: Using your custom greeting, virtual receptionists pick up the phone to say hello.

Receptionist Takes Action: Equipped with training and your personalized call handling instructions, receptionists will either forward the call to your preferred line, take a message, or offer the caller voicemail.

You Stay Connected: Can’t take the call? A message will arrive shortly after your caller and receptionist have disconnected to fill you in on what you missed.

In addition to picking up when you can’t, look for the virtual receptionist companies that merge the advantages of technology with a human touch. From handy mobile apps that put the power of the front desk at your fingertips to hosting your business line, the best services offer a suite of comprehensive features that integrate seamlessly into your day.

Is it right for me?

Excellent question. Let’s answer this query with… more questions.

What are your aspirations for your practice? If you’re looking to grow your firm, missed calls are missed opportunities. You never know when your next big client will phone in.

How many potential cases have you already lost to voicemail?

How do you value your client experience? Between casework, traveling, client meetings, and court dates, are you able to pay proper attention to your touchpoints?

If you’re feeling it and plan to start scoping out your options, make sure you select the service that fits the individual needs of your firm. To help you get started, we’ve put together a list of q’s to ask your top VR contenders:

Will my calls be answered live? (Because what is the point, if not?)

What is the average ring time per call?

What services are included?

How are the receptionists monitored? (Unhappy receptionists equals unhappy callers.)

How can I update my call preferences? (Is it easy? Or just creates more fuss?)

How will I be charged? (Better to clear the air right from the start. Is it per minute? Am I paying for the time even after the call has been transferred?)

With companies like Ruby Receptionists waiting in the wings to wow your callers and empower you with the freedom to focus, there is no reason to lose out on potential work or sour your relationships with clients due to a lackluster client experience.

To learn more about how a virtual receptionist can benefit your practice, give us a call at 866-611-7829 (RUBY) or visit us at callruby.com.

]]>Although cloud services have become so popular in general businesses as to be nearly ubiquitous, there still has not been a sea change in the legal profession.

The terms “cloud” and “cloud computing” have become much more familiar to lawyers in the last few years, but there can still be some confusion on the standard definitions. In the enterprise IT world, you will find public, private, and hybrid clouds, and many flavors of “as a service”: software (SaaS), infrastructure (IaaS), and platform (PaaS), to name the three most common.

To keep it simple, the 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report has focused on the basic concept of a “web-based software service or solution,” including SaaS. In practical terms, you can understand cloud computing as software or services that can be accessed and used over the Internet using a browser (or, commonly now, a mobile app), where the software itself is not installed locally on the computer being used by the lawyer accessing the service. Your data are also processed and stored on remote servers rather than on local computers and hard drives. Another common way to describe cloud services is to refer to “web services” or “hosted services.”

Cloud services might be hosted by a third party (most commonly Amazon or Microsoft) or, more commonly in the legal profession, by a provider running its services on Amazon, Microsoft, or another cloud provider. It’s also possible, though unlikely, that a law firm could host and provide its own private cloud services.

The cloud approach has become quite popular in the business world (e.g., Salesforce.com, BaseCamp, Google for Work, and Slack), and for individuals (e.g., Dropbox, Gmail, and Evernote). You can also easily find legal-specific cloud services such as Clio, Rocket Matter, NetDocuments, PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MyCase, and many others.

The 2018 Survey results again show lawyers still moving much more cautiously to the cloud than the rest of the business world. The 2018 Survey reports that cloud usage bumped up very slightly, from 52% to 54.6%, an increase of approximately 4%. The details of the results suggest that there continues to be misunderstanding and confusion about what cloud services are—something we’ve seen in prior years. For example, only 36.2% of respondents from firms of more than 500 lawyers answered “yes” about cloud usage—a surprisingly low number that probably says more about the low level of knowledge and engagement of large firm lawyers in the details of their technologies than it does about actual cloud usage in large firms. Solo and small firms continue to lead the way in cloud adoption.

The key cloud computing benefits have remained constant over the years. Lawyers and law firms see the cloud as a fast and scalable way to use advanced legal technology tools without the need for a substantial upfront capital investment in hardware, software, and support services. Cloud services are generally made available in the form of a “subscription,” with a periodic fee (typically monthly) per user. A popular example of a cloud service is Dropbox, a cloud service for file storage and sharing, that many lawyers report they are already using. The standard Dropbox business account currently costs $199 per user per year. Many traditional software providers have moved to cloud models and offer hosted versions of their products, joining a large number of companies that focus solely on the cloud. The EXPO at ABA TECHSHOW 2018 again had a noticeable increase in the number of exhibitors with cloud products over prior years.

Despite slow growth and wariness of lawyers, cloud computing appears to be moving toward becoming a standard approach in legal technology, with more than half now using cloud services.

As you will see, however, the 2018 Survey highlights a major concern that, while lawyers talk the talk about security concerns in cloud computing, to a shocking degree, they do not walk the walk. If you take only one thing from this TECHREPORT to add to your 2019 technology agenda, it should be to up your game on cloud security, for your sake and, even more so, for the sake of your clients.

Survey Highlights

Cloud usage grew a mere 4% from 2017 to 2018, from 52% to 54.6%. Solos and small firms continue to lead the way.

Confidentiality, security, data control and ownership, ethics, vendor reputation and longevity, and other concerns weigh heavily on the minds of lawyers, yet the employment of precautionary security measures is quite low, with no more than 38.1% of respondents actually taking any one of the specific standard cautionary security measures listed in the 2018 Survey question on the topic. 10.7%, an increase from 9% in 2017, reported taking no security precautions of the types listed. Only 40.7% of respondents report that adoption of cloud computing resulted in changes to internal technology or security policies.

Despite some reservations, lawyers continued to use popular consumer cloud services like Dropbox, Google Apps, iCloud, and Evernote at higher rates than dedicated legal cloud services. Clio and NetDocuments rank the highest among the legal cloud services.

Lawyers are becoming more familiar with cloud technologies and are attracted by anytime, anywhere access, low cost of entry, predictable monthly expenses, and robust data backup. Notably, almost 31% indicate that cloud services provide the benefit of giving greater security than they can provide on their own.

Concerns about confidentiality/security and lack of control lead the worry list by a wide margin. Almost 95% of lawyers rate the reputation of the vendor as important in their decision-making process.

The 2018 Survey results also suggest that client-focus is not top of mind for lawyers using and considering the use of cloud computing. The consideration of client needs, expectations, and desires could become a key target area for innovative lawyers and firms.

Solos, small firms, and medium-sized firms have higher cloud usage than large firms. These results might reflect a lack of familiarity with the tools used in large firms.

Only 10% of respondents indicated that they expected to replace an existing software tool with a cloud tool in 2018. 47% have no plan to do so.

A third of lawyers are at firms with extranets. Extranets are used primarily for firm lawyers (89%) and much less likely for clients (36%).

1. Usage Numbers

The percentage of the 2018 Survey participants answering “yes” to the basic question of whether they had used web-based software services or solutions grew by roughly 4%, from 52.1% to 54.6%. 32.9% said “no,” a small decrease. “Don’t know” responses bumped up a bit to 12.5% from roughly 10% in 2017 and 2016. Solos (58.5%, up from 55.7% in 2017) and firms of 2-9 lawyers (57.9%, up from 56.3% in 2017) continued to lead the way in usage. Larger firms “yes” responses ranged from 36-56%, similar to 2017. However, these overall results can be confusing given answers to other questions, suggesting the possibility that actual usage might be higher than the reported usage. For example, many mobile apps are also essentially front-ends for cloud services. Many lawyers who do not think that they are using the cloud may, in fact, be using it every day, especially through mobile apps.

2. Security: Time for Action

Although lawyers have a lot of concerns and wariness about cloud services, especially security, confidentiality, and control issues, their reported behavior about precautionary measures simply does not reflect what they express their level of concern to be. In fact, the results are shocking and reflect little, if any, positive movement in the past year or even in the past few years. The lack of effort on security has become a major cause for concern in the profession.

Of 13 standard precautionary security measures listed in the 2018 Survey, the measure most commonly used (reviewing the privacy policy) was used by only 38% of the respondents, down from 41% in 2017. Given the emphasis on data privacy in 2018 because of the European Union GDPR, this result is especially concerning. The next most widely-employed precautions were making local data backups (36%, down from 41% in 2017), using only services with SSL/encryption (34%, down from 36%), reviewing Terms of Service (34%, staying the same), and reviewing ethical decisions on cloud computing (33.5%, up from 30%). Would lawyers recommend that their clients take these approaches?

The numbers only get worse from there.

Only 30% sought advice from peers and only 29% evaluated vendor company history, despite the stated importance of vendor reputation (95%) in selecting vendors. There were no meaningful increases in these numbers as compared to 2017.

At the very bottom of the results are things that lawyers should do quite well. A mere 7% negotiated confidentiality agreements in connection with cloud services, and, in next to last place, only 5% negotiated service legal agreements (SLAs). Using data escrow was in last place (1.4%). If security and confidentiality are lawyers’ biggest concerns about cloud computing, does this behavior make any sense?

3. Consumer Cloud Services More Popular Than Dedicated Legal Services

The 2018 Survey asked respondents what cloud providers they had used. Dropbox, the well-known online file storage service, once again topped the list at 60%, essentially the same as in 2017. Other consumer cloud services also remained popular (Google Docs, 36%, down from 38%; iCloud, 22%, down from 28%; Evernote, 14%, down from 18%), despite a lot of discussion about encryption and other security concerns about consumer cloud services in the press and among lawyers. Surprisingly, Office 365 usage is reported at only 6.8%.

Legal-specific cloud services have not reached the same levels of popularity as the consumer services. Clio continues to be the most popular legal cloud service named by respondents (9.7%, down from 12.4% in 2017), followed by NetDocuments (8.7%, up from 4.3%), and MyCase (2.9%, down from 3.7%). RocketMatter and Practice Panther were next at 1.6%. These results might reflect both the difficulties lawyers and others have with determining what exactly is a “cloud” service and the increased number of legal cloud service providers, especially in the case management category. Note that services that many would consider “cloud”—WestLaw, LexisNexis, FastCase, to name a few—do not show up in the results, except possibly as small components of the “other” category (17.6%).

The high level of use of Dropbox in larger firms (60%) in firms from 50-499 lawyers also indicates that lawyers in what are traditionally considered “locked down” IT environments are looking for other tools to accomplish tasks they have difficulty doing with traditional law firm tools—another area that deserves further exploration, especially by those firms.

In the last few years, the collaboration tool, Slack, has become extremely popular in small businesses and technology companies. As of right now, there is still no indication of its uptake in the legal world.

4. Where is the Client-focus?

Largely missing in action in the results were clients and client concerns. Here are a few numbers to consider. Extranets are probably the classic example of a secure cloud tool that can help clients and help collaborate on projects with external parties; the results show that 89% of firms allow access to their lawyers and 56% to their staff. Access to clients, who potentially benefit the most from extranets, was only provided by 36%. Collaboration for “friendly” outsiders was permitted by 21%.

5. Cloud Benefits

There was not a lot of change in the perceived benefits of cloud computing shown in the 2018 Survey. Anywhere, anytime access is the biggest perceived benefit of cloud computing for lawyers. Low cost of entry and predictable monthly expenses are also highly rated benefits. Other economic benefits, such as eliminating IT and software management requirements and quick start-up times are also seen as important benefits by almost half of the respondents. Only 31% of lawyers see “better security than I can provide in-office” as a benefit of cloud computing—a striking number, especially to anyone familiar with data center security procedures as compared to standard security practices in law firms.

6. Biggest Lawyer Concerns

While more lawyers reported using the cloud, they continue to express reservations and concerns about the cloud. When current cloud users were asked to identify their biggest concerns, they cited “confidentiality/security concerns” (63%, down from 69% in 2017) and concerns about losing control of data (47%, down from 49%). Concerns about losing control over updates (25%) and vendor longevity (23%) were other significant concerns. Only 9% listed client concerns about lawyers using the cloud.

There were similar concerns among those lawyers who have yet to try the cloud. When asked a question about the concerns that had prevented them from adopting the cloud, 56% cited confidentiality/security concerns, 40% cited the loss of control, and 19% cited the cost of switching. “Unfamiliarity with the technology,” was listed by 39%, up from 37% in 2017.

7. Name and Reputation of Cloud Vendor

Ninety-five percent of respondents using cloud services considered the name and reputation of the cloud vendor as either “very important” (69%) or “somewhat important” (26%) to their decision, up slightly from 91% in 2017. However, only 29% of respondents reported that they evaluated the vendor’s history and only 30% sought out peer advice/experiences in connection with the vendor. This area is definitely one in which lawyers can improve their due diligence efforts.

8. Replacing Existing Tools with Cloud Services

Even though interest in cloud services is high, the interest does not seem to translate into substantial action at this point, at least in terms of replacing existing software tools. Only 10% of respondents indicated that they expected to replace an existing software tool with a cloud tool in 2018. Lawyers might be looking to the cloud only for new tools or to supplement existing tools. They also might not be thinking of mobile app as cloud tools.

9. Internally-focused Extranets

Extranets are the premier example of a client-facing tool. Lawyers, perhaps ironically, have focused on extranets as internal tools. Extranets are private websites for which a user—internal or external—must have authorization to use. A law firm extranet could be used to allow a client to access files or gain other information on matters.

A third of lawyers are at firms with extranets. Extranets are used primarily for firm lawyers (89%) and staff (56%) but much less for clients (36%). These numbers suggest opportunities for lawyers to open up these tools for clients.

Conclusions

The 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report shows that, for only a small majority of lawyers and firms, cloud services are now part of the IT equation. Compare that to the 96% number in the RightScale report mentioned in the opening paragraph for businesses in general. Reported growth in cloud use stayed relatively flat in 2018. However, the continuing lack of actual attention to confidentiality, security, and due diligence issues remains a serious concern, especially with the growth of mobile apps running on cloud services. The results on security procedures will continue to fuel client concerns about security efforts by their outside law firms.

There is much that law firm IT departments and technology committees, legal technology vendors and consultants, corporate law departments, clients, and all legal professionals interested in the adoption of technology by lawyers can learn from these results. They give us much to think about and some indications where firms might want to move their technology strategies in the coming year and beyond. Applying basic common sense, diligence, and increased attention to security efforts might be the biggest lesson to learn for the upcoming year. In short, cloud cybersecurity must be on your technology plan for 2019.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/01/techreport-2018-cloud-computing/feed/0TECHREPORT 2018: Marketinghttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/01/techreport-2018-marketing/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2019/01/techreport-2018-marketing/#respondMon, 07 Jan 2019 14:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=9549Take a dive past social media and into websites and other marketing trends for lawyers in this TECHREPORT.

The annual ABA TECHREPORT combines data from the annual Legal Technology Survey Report with expert analysis, observations, and predictions from leaders in the legal technology field. For the first time, we are bringing TECHREPORT to Law Technology Today for you. Every Monday we’ll be posting a new report from one of our experts, so stay tuned!

As it does every year, from May through October of 2018, the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center conducted its Legal Technology Survey Report on the use of technology in the legal profession. The 2018 Survey was delivered electronically to close to 4,000 ABA members in private practice in the US and included firms of all sizes.

Respondents to the portion of the 2018 Survey that covers websites and law firm marketing consisted largely of solos (42%) and firms of 2-9 attorneys (32%), followed by 12% at firms of 10-49 attorneys, and 14% at firms of 50+ lawyers. The average age of all respondents was 54 years of age, and on average, respondents have been admitted to the bar for 25 years.

This article will examine some of the trends in law firm websites and marketing based on the responses over the past several years. In past years, my TECHREPORT article has focused specifically on lawyer blogs and social media. This year, while I will comment on blogging and social media trends, I’ll focus more on lawyer websites and other marketing trends.

The internet can help to level the playing field significantly, allowing smaller firms and solos to compete for business that, in the past, would only go to larger firms. Solo practitioners and small firms who get on board with a good internet marketing strategy still have an opportunity to use the internet to stand out and to differentiate themselves. But based on the 2018 Survey results, a significant number of solo and small firms are not taking advantage of this opportunity.

Law Firm Websites

Overall, 77% of respondents report that their firms have websites. This represents a drop over the past three years when over 84% of respondents overall reported their firm had a website.

The likelihood that a firm will have a website varies significantly based on the size of the firm. Solos are the least likely to have a website at only 55%. By contrast, 100% of firms with 50+ lawyers, 97% of firms with 10-49 lawyers, and 89% of firms with 2-9 lawyers reported that their firms had a site.

Visibility Online Is Crucial

By failing to establish a website, solos are missing a crucial business development tool. Even with a word-of-mouth referral, many clients will turn to Google for information before contacting a lawyer. Whether they are also searching for other lawyers in the area that also practice the same kind of law or not, if those potential clients turn to Google and do not find the lawyer, they may very well find—and contact—a competitor.

In some cases, the potential client may use the internet to search for information before they hire a lawyer. In those cases, the potential client isn’t looking for a lawyer per se, but imagine that, during their search, the potential client lands on a law firm website that answers the very question they were asking and demonstrates the firm or lawyer’s extensive knowledge of the practice area. Which lawyer do you think the client is likely to all first when they are ready to seek the advice of a lawyer?

With an increasing number of lawyers available for clients to choose from, lawyers need to differentiate themselves, which often requires establishing their expertise in a particular niche field, an area of practice or industry, or with a particular audience or group of people. There is increased competition for work, not only from other lawyers but also from the proliferation of non-lawyer online options potential clients may use to avoid hiring a lawyer in the first place.

Lawyers who have relevant, valuable, meaningful content available not only about themselves and their firms, but about their clients and their clients’ problems, challenges, and industries are much more likely to get the attention of the potential client and get that potential client to pick up the telephone and schedule an appointment than lawyers who have little or no information available them online.

Solos and small firms that still do not have a web presence and a website with their own domain name are not taking advantage of the power of the internet to build their practice. While many of these lawyers undoubtedly have some internet presence on other sites such as Avvo, Facebook, or LinkedIn, it is important for lawyers to have an internet presence that they control and content that they own. Who knows what will happen to these platforms in the future? If your law firm content and information reside only on these platforms, you’re taking an unnecessary risk.

Who Does the Work on Law Firm Websites?

Not only does size have an impact on whether a firm has a website, but it also dictates who manages and creates content for the site. Almost a third of respondents reported that the firm’s website was primarily managed by one lawyer in the firm, as opposed to an outside provider or consultant (23%), firm marketing staff (14%), an office manager/ administrator (9%) or others.

Not surprisingly, solo attorneys and respondents from firms of 2-9 attorneys are more likely than respondents from other firm sizes to report that their firms’ websites are primarily managed by one lawyer in the firm (51% and 35% respectively). These numbers have held steady since 2015.

Respondents from firms of 100+ attorneys are the most likely to report that firm marketing staff manages their firms’ websites (41%), followed by firm technology staff (15%), and firm webmasters (12%). Attorneys from large firms were also most likely to report that they did not know who manages their firm’s website; 29% of respondents from firms of 100+attorneys report that they do not know who manages their firms’ websites, followed by 11% from firms of 10-49 attorneys.

Many firms, regardless of size, rely on a single attorney to carry the load of content creation for the firm’s website; 39% of respondents overall reported that one lawyer in the firm creates the content for the site, up from 2015 when 24% reported only one attorney created firm website content. Another 30% of respondents’ website content is created by an outside provider or consultant. The remainder reported content was created either by more than one attorney in the firm (26%) or firm marketing staff (20%).

Once again, and similar to previous years, the majority of solos rely on themselves (63%) to create content for their website, or they outsource to outside consultants or providers (37%). Respondents from firms of 2-9 attorneys are almost evenly split between relying on one lawyer in their firm (37%), an outside consultant or provider (35%), and more than one lawyer in their firm (29%).

Firms of 10-49 attorneys most often rely on multiple lawyers in the firm to create content (39%), but this has declined over the past four years, from a high of 63% in 2016. Others carrying the load from these firms include firm marketing staff (36%), followed by an office manager/administrator (29%), and one lawyer in their firm (23%).

Respondents from firms of 100+ attorneys most often report that their firms rely on firm marketing staff for website content creation (89%), followed by more than one lawyer in the firm (62%) and firm technology staff (23%).

Seventy-three percent of respondents did not hire an outside agency or consultant to help them with SEO, social media, or AdWords and Pay-Per-Click (PPC) campaigns. The ones that did were most likely to hire for SEO (23%) and social media (14%). Few firms are using consultants for Google AdWords or PPC advertising.

Even fewer firms are syndicating content from the firm’s website to other websites, publications, or social networks. Overall, only 15% of firms syndicate website content. Firms of 100+attorneys are most likely to syndicate content (24%). In firms of all other sizes, less than 20% syndicate content.

Tips for Developing a Website and Content Strategy

With the amount of content being created and posted on the internet every single day, it is more important than ever for lawyers to develop and implement a content strategy for their firm to ensure that quality content is being created and posted consistently.

Simply put, these days, it is common for potential clients to want to see some evidence of the lawyer’s expertise before contacting the lawyer. Lawyers who simply state on their websites that they have expertise or knowledge in a specific area are going to be at a disadvantage when compared to attorneys who demonstrate that expertise with articles, video, and other content that shows that they are not only proficient in their area of the law, but that they understand the issues their clients face on a daily basis.

Content marketing can help humanize a lawyer, show that they have a point of view, and give potential clients a taste of what working with a particular lawyer might be like. It is an opportunity to become a trusted authority and a resource for information or perspective on a particular topic. But that content should be original (or have original elements and commentary), relevant, and current.

Since solo and small firm lawyers consistently rely on only one lawyer to create the content, admittedly, this can be a challenge. These lawyers typically wear many hats, not only managing their website and other marketing and creating content for it but also practicing law and serving clients. While outsourcing content creation the way many of the larger firms do may help by freeing up the lawyer to focus on other things, there are drawbacks to allowing others to create content.

First, outside companies may not know the firm’s vision and clients. They may not be lawyers themselves, may not understand the law or legal concepts or be familiar with the nuances of practice in the specific jurisdiction, and may not be aware of the special ethical rules that lawyers must abide by. In addition, when content is created by a third party, it can create a disconnect between the reader and the firm if the reader does contact the firm.

For example, let’s assume content is created by a third party and managed by a non-lawyer staff person within the firm. Even if the content is legally correct, if the lawyers are not familiar with the content contained on their site (because they haven’t written or reviewed it themselves), it can create an awkward moment with a client or potential client who asks a question about something they saw on the site. This is particularly true in the case of solos and small firms. Similarly, the “voice” created by the content on a law firm website helps to form the client’s expectation about what the experience of working with the firm and its lawyers will be like. If the client’s experience with the firm is not in line with those expectations, it places tension on the lawyer-client relationship.

Many solo and small firm attorneys do not create content or have a website because they are not sure what to write or believe it will be too time-consuming or expensive. Here are just a few ideas that might help:

Create content in batches; set aside time to write a number of posts or articles at once and then schedule them to post in the future.

Write a long piece and break it up into several shorter posts to publish in a series online.

Don’t have time to batch or write long pieces? Schedule short blocks of time—even 15-minute increments—to develop content. A few paragraphs can be a blog post, or 15 minutes spent answering one or two common client questions could contribute to a website FAQ section.

Repurpose content you already have. For example:

Take CLE materials and turn different sections into several articles on your site or turn your PowerPoint into a video

Pull out an explanation of the law from a client status report and turn it into a blog post or short article

Take the list of documents you request from clients to prepare their estate plan and turn it into a checklist to post on your website

Online Services Offered

Law firm websites have gradually begun changing, from purely marketing or promotional tools that generate new client leads and help convince potential clients to contact the law firm for a consultation to tools that help deliver services to clients. In addition, there has been a proliferation of online platforms that allow lawyers to provide additional services to clients over the internet, if not necessarily on their own websites. The 2018 Survey explored some of these areas as well.

Secure Client Portals

Most lawyers hate when clients call and ask them the same questions over and over, or when clients are impatient and want answers immediately, even if the lawyer is in court or otherwise unavailable. But a client waiting for a response has the potential to become a dissatisfied client very quickly.

One of the most powerful—and under-utilized according to the 2018 Survey—online tools is a secure client portal. Secure client portalscan be used for consultations, host fillable forms to make intake and other information-gathering easier both for the firm and for clients, and offer document creation and sharing tools. Portals can also take the place of email to provide messages or status updates for clients, schedule appointments, and make invoicing and bill payment easy.

The advantages of using a secure client portal include peace of mind that client and firm data will be securely stored and shared with clients, and it saves time and reduces frustration by providing clients with access to information anytime, anywhere they have an internet connection. It reduces phone calls and phone tag with lawyers and creates a single place for all client documentation and communication—since everything is stored in one place, neither firm nor client has to worry about cobbling together information from email, snail mail, and various other programs.

Respondents from firms of 100+ attorneys are the most likely to report offering clients access to a secure client portal (59%), in contrast to 8% from solo firms, 11% from firms of 10-49 attorneys, and 21% from firms of 2-9 attorneys. Of those that provide a secure client portal, SharePoint is the most popular, at 24%, followed by Clio at 17%, and 9% each for MyCase, Box, or a custom solution.

Other Online Services

Even without a secure client portal as a hub on the firm’s website, lawyers are offering other online services to clients. Most popular among these services are messaging or communication services, document sharing, and invoicing and/or bill payment services. Among those, invoicing and online bill payment has seen the most growth since 2015, from 18% to 30% in 2018.

Once again, larger firms are more likely to report the use of these online tools. For example, 76% of firms with 100+ attorneys report offering document sharing, while less than 40% of firms of other sizes offer it, including only about a third of attorneys in firms of 2-9 lawyers and 18% of solos.

Other tools provide an easy way to generate leads, obtain information from clients and potential clients, and streamline the intake process. Calendaring software that allows leads to schedule an initial consultation directly or complete intake forms online can get clients in the door faster and easier, while also ensuring that the attorney has all of the information they need before the consult takes place.

Most firms are not only not taking advantage of these tools, but 71% do not have a formal intake process. Once again, the largest firms are most likely to do so, at 43%, followed by 39% from firms of 2-9 lawyers, 37% from firms of 10-49 lawyers, and 16% of solo attorneys. Of firms that currently utilize a formal lead intake process, 22% use specialized intake software.

Based on the 2018 Survey, the majority of firms with less than 100 lawyers are not offering any of these online services to clients despite the explosion in the use of mobile devices that clients carry with them all of the time. The slow rate of adoption of these kinds of online services may be attributable to several factors, including the typical resistance shown by attorneys to change, concern over security and confidentiality of firm and client data, confusion over the many available options, and compatibility with legacy firm systems.

Offering these kinds of services online can represent savings for the firm by freeing up resources, including staff and attorney time, and simultaneously increasing client satisfaction. This represents another huge opportunity for smaller firms.

Legal Blogs and Social Media

In 2018, 24% of firms reported having a blog, down from a high of 31% in 2017. Of those that do maintain a blog, 55% update it monthly, followed by 9% weekly. No respondents reported that the firm updated its blog daily.

Similar to the number of firms that maintain a website, 76% of respondents report that their firms maintained a presence in online communities or social networks. This number has remained steady since 2015.

Overall, 36% of respondents’ firms maintain a presence on Avvo, but usage is skewed toward smaller firms; Avvo is most likely to be used by solos (47%) and small firms of less than 10 lawyers (40%). More than 75% of lawyers in firms with 10+ lawyers said their firm does not use Avvo.

Use of Facebook is up slightly to 63% this year after being between 56-58% in the previous three years. Twitter use among firms is still uncommon; only 14% of respondents reported that their firms maintained a presence on Twitter. Use of Martindale also dropped from 41% in 2016 to 31% in 2018.

As noted in last year’s TECHREPORT, LinkedIn use by law firms has been declining since 2015 when 93% of lawyers reported the use of LinkedIn. Even so, firm use of LinkedIn still exceeds every other platform.

Use of social media by individual lawyers for professional purposes remains strong, with 79% of respondents reporting that they use one or more social networks for professional purposes. Here LinkedIn far outranks the other platforms—overall, 82% of all respondents are using LinkedIn themselves for professional purposes, as compared to 47% on Facebook, 27% on Avvo, and far fewer on the other platforms surveyed.

Smaller firm lawyers are more likely to use Facebook for professional purposes; solo lawyers reported Facebook usage for professional purposes at 59%, followed by lawyers in firms of 2-9 lawyers at 49%, and only 26% of lawyers in firms with 10+ lawyers. It may be that the difference is attributable to the higher percentage of solo and small firm lawyers with business to consumer, rather than business to business, practices.

Thirty-three percent of respondents overall have claimed their Avvo profile, similar to past years. Respondents from firms of 2-9 are the most likely to claim their Avvo profile (44%), followed by 31% each of solo respondents and respondents from firms of 10-49 lawyers. Only 10% of respondents from firms of 100+ have done so.

Most individual lawyers using social networks for professional reasons do so for the purpose of networking or career development, followed by client development, education, and current awareness.

Overall, 35% of respondents who use social media for professional purposes have been rewarded with clients as a result, either directly or through a referral. Another 19% did not know whether their social media use resulted in clients. Firms of 2-9 attorneys have the best track record for gaining clients through social media use, at 42%. Firms of 100+ attorneys are less successful—only 15% reported retaining a client as a result of social media use.

Lawyers should keep in mind that retention of clients is not the only benefit of participating in social media for professional purposes. Lawyers not currently using these tools might consider joining and participating in one or more social networks to expand their reach, gain visibility, drive traffic to the firm’s website, make media contacts, get speaking engagements, and more.

Law Firm Marketing Trends

What Channels Do Lawyers Use for Marketing?

Overall, the most popular channels are Facebook (35%) and email (33%), followed by print (25%) and Avvo (20%). Smaller firms rely most on electronic marketing, especially Facebook.

Use of print is declining, although a quarter of firms still rely on print for their marketing (down from 34% last year). Interestingly, firms from 2-9 attorneys (28%) and those of 100+ lawyers (27%) were most likely to rely on print as one of their main marketing channels.

Solo respondents are most likely to report Facebook (33%), email (28%), and Avvo (26%) as the channels used for marketing. Respondents from firms of 2-9 attorneys report Facebook (52%) and print (28%) as the channels most used. Respondents from firms of 10-49 report email (54%) and direct mail (36%), and respondents from firms of 100+ attorneys report email (37%) and print (27%) as the channels most used by their firms to market itself.

Despite the number of firms that are using the marketing tools discussed here, overall, only 33% of respondents’ firms have an annual marketing budget. Respondents from firms of 100+ attorneys are most likely to report having a marketing budget (84%), followed by firms of 10-49 (40%), 2-9 (39%), and solo firms (12%). This is another indication that law firms—and solos in particular—need to spend time developing a marketing strategy, including setting goals, identifying targets, and building budgets to accomplish their marketing goals.

Of those firms that do have a marketing budget, 41% report their firms’ budget has increased, 7% report the budget has decreased, and 32% report that their budget has stayed the same since last year. 20% report that they do not know.

Overall, 45% of respondents will place the same emphasis on marketing next year as in the previous year, while 34% will place more emphasis on marketing, and only 4% will place less emphasis on marketing in the coming year.

Consistent with responses about managing firm websites and creating content, over half of respondents (55%) report that attorneys in the firm handle marketing themselves, while only 19% rely on dedicated internal marketing staff. Another 12% report using external marketing consultants, and 11% report that administrative staff are primarily responsible for the firm’s marketing. 19% of respondents report that no one is handling the firm’s marketing.

Respondents from firms of 100+ attorney are most likely to report that dedicated internal marketing staff handles marketing for their firm (84%). As the number of lawyers in the firm declines, so too does the likelihood that the firm has internal marketing staff doing their marketing. Firms of 10-49 attorneys are most likely to report their marketing is handled by administrative staff (24%) followed by 16% of respondents from firms of 2-9 lawyers.

Nineteen percent from firms of 100+ attorneys report their marketing is handled by external marketing consultant(s), followed by 18% of respondents from firms of 10-49 attorneys, 12% of respondents from firms of 2-9, and 9% of solo respondents.

Based on the 2018 Survey responses, lawyers are not taking advantage of analytics or reports to determine the effectiveness of their marketing initiatives. Many respondents do not have access to web analytics to monitor traffic (keeping in mind that the attorneys responding may not be those responsible for this task in their firm, or the firm may be relying on marketing staff internally to view and report on these analytics). Of those that have access to analytics, over a third said they never review these analytics, and another third view them only quarterly. Of those working with external agencies on marketing, 15% are not provided with any regular reports.

Based on these statistics, it is not surprising that when asked how confident respondents were that their firm’s marketing was effective, 27% reported they were “not at all confident” and only 5% were “very confident” in their marketing’s effectiveness. On average, respondents rated confidence in their firm’s marketing at 2.5 on a 5-point scale.

Key Takeaways

This year’s TECHREPORT responses on websites and legal marketing provide several key insights or areas of improvement, particularly for solo and small firm lawyers.

While roughly 75% of firms maintain a website and have some kind of online presence on social media or other online communities, much of the work being done online is performed by either one lawyer within the firm or by non-lawyer staff or consultants. A disproportionate number of solos have no website at all, although many are using other online platforms, leaving their content and communication vulnerable to the whims of these other platforms.

While many firms have access to analytics or reporting that would provide insights into the effectiveness of their online marketing activity, few lawyers are using or maximizing their use of these tools.

To compete in an ever more competitive legal market, lawyers need to place more emphasis on creating their own branded web presence and ensuring that the firm’s management and those who will come into contact with clients are familiar with the content on the site, who is managing the site, and whether the site is performing as expected.

Online services, whether through a secure client portal connected to the firm’s website or offered separately, are available in abundance, but close to 70% of lawyers are not using any of these tools, representing another underutilized area to be explored.

All in all, the 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report shows that there are many opportunities available for lawyers willing to try something new with their marketing and client communication.

The annual ABA TECHREPORT combines data from the annual Legal Technology Survey Report with expert analysis, observations, and predictions from leaders in the legal technology field. For the first time, we are bringing TECHREPORT to Law Technology Today for you. This is our last report for 2018; check back early 2019 for more!

The key takeaways from this year’s ABALegal Technology Survey Report regarding the use of technology in the courtroom, training, and e-discovery are as follows:

Use of billable hour declined about 10% from 2017.

The number of lawyers not using technology in the courtroom continues to decline sharply. Use of trial presentation technology by large firm lawyers is pretty standard but not by smaller firms.

Courts are offering more courtroom technology training, which lawyers are taking advantage of. More courts have courtroom technologies to use.

Mandatory and voluntary electronic court filings in state and local courts continue to increase and have become the norm. E-discovery requests continue to rise and are mainstream. But predictive coding and technology assisted review have not yet caught on or become mainstream. Simple solutions and keyword searching remain the tools of choice.

The troubling technology gap between large firms and small firms in overall resources and technology use continues to exist. In the courtroom, this means more reliance on “do it yourself” by small firms and the use of specialized staff or consultants by large firms. In the hardware and software world, this means less investment by small firms and greater access to technology tools by their larger brethren. In the e-discovery world, this is equating to increased use of software and consultants by large firms while small firms struggle along the best they can. This gap continues to have repercussions for the quality of service to under-served legal needs and the continued health of smaller firms that play such a key role in society.

Demographics

Eighty-three percent of the respondents were from firms of less than 50 lawyers (compared to 75% last year). This skews the results slightly: firms with 50+ lawyers typically have more IT and technology resources. In addition, the survey size of some of the larger firms (500+) was small, thus the responses from this limited number may not necessarily reflect what is happening in these larger firms. In addition, the average age of the respondents was close to 54 (similar to last year); on average, the respondents had been admitted to the bar for 26 years. 37% percent of the respondents fall between the ages of 60 or older (down from 48% last year, perhaps reflecting a demographic shift as boomers age out).

These ages and years spent in practice may still skew the results: while many in this age group may be early adopters and fully conversant and comfortable with technology, they also came of age as lawyers when technology was not as ubiquitous as it is today.

It’s also important to note that the 2018 Survey was directed to lawyers in private practice only—not in-house lawyers who, as clients, may ultimately drive more changes across the board.

On the plus side, most of the responses were from those whose primary practice area was litigation. Some 72% of the respondents said they actually practice in the courtroom. This constitutes a slight change over the past several years.

Sixty-five percent of the respondents were male versus 72% last year; this gender gap decreases with age.

One other demographic note: while the billable hour is still the primary billing strategy among our respondents—60%—this is down almost 10% from last year perhaps indicating the start of a sea change.

Courtroom Technology

The percentage of lawyers not using technology in the courtroom continues to drop: 20.6% in 2018 compared to 43% in 2017, 45% in 2016, 51% in 2015, and 54% in 2014. Whether this reflects the adoption by more states of Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1 (requiring that lawyers kept abreast of developments in technology), the increased availability of resources and cost decreases, or some combination of all these and other factors is unknown.

Laptop Use in the Courtroom

Somewhat surprisingly, laptop use in the courtroom has actually decreased since last year, with only 50% reporting using a laptop for various tasks, compared to 55% in 2016, 49% in 2015, 46% in 2014, and 48% in 2013. Up until this year, this number had been increasing. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact laptops continue to morph into hybrids (like the Microsoft Surface Pro or Lenovo Yoga), and the old terminology and dichotomy between the traditional laptop and tablet is becoming less and less relevant.

The top uses for laptops in the courtroom include:

32% to access email

32% to do legal research

29% to access key evidence and documents

25% to access court dockets and documents

21% to deliver presentations (a percentage that interestingly has remained fairly constant despite improvements in technology)

The gap between the percentage of large firm respondents who use laptops and other technology to deliver presentations in the courtroom (56%, up a staggering 19% over last year) and solo and small firm respondents (15% of solos and 21% of those in firms of 2-9) continues to exist. This discrepancy in the use of the persuasive techniques afforded by technology is troubling.

Tablets and Smartphones

Use of tablets in the courtroom declined slightly from 38% last year to 32% this year.

The top uses of the tablet in the courtroom the same as last year: email (24%), calendaring (18%), and online research (15%). 9% report using their tablet to access key evidence and documents.

Interestingly, the number of large firm respondents using tablets in the courtroom significantly dropped from 28% last year to 22% this year which again may reflect a greater reliance on laptops or hybrids. The remaining categories of firms using tablets remained steady.

Smartphone use in the courtroom was roughly the same as last year (84% up from 80%), compared to 76% in 2015 and 77% in 2014. As expected, the greatest use of smartphones in the courtroom is to check for email and calendaring. The least-cited uses were for editing documents, making presentations, and accessing software. The use of smartphones for online research increased slightly, probably since larger screens are becoming more popular.

Training

Again, the number of respondents with training in courtroom technologies, while low, continues to appear to improve (34% this year versus 30% last year and 28% the year before last). As suspected, the large firms (100+ attorneys) lead the way in training.

Importantly, the training that exists today seems mainly done by the courts themselves, with 58% of lawyers getting training from this source.

Why no training? The answers are interesting. The top reason still being given is that training is not available (27%, although this declined from 42% last year, a significant change). Only 8.6% of the respondents said courtrooms didn’t have the technology to train on: this is a huge reduction from the 28% reported last year. 30% of the lawyers responding still said training was not necessary and, interestingly, very few of the large firm lawyers reported taking advantage of their own internal training materials.

Software

The most popular software being used is still litigation support related (available in 21% of the responding firms), followed by deposition transcription/management software (19%) and trial presentation software (13%). These numbers are all lower than last year’s.

The litigation support software available at the respondents’ law firms remained constant. The highest number (38%) report that their firms have litigation support software (down slightly from 42% last year). Deposition management software (32%) and trial presentation software (26%) remained close to that reported last year. Larger firms have much greater access to software. When asked whether their firm had purchased software in the last six months, 71% said no (up from 67% last year) and 23% said they didn’t know. This suggests a lack of interest in these technologies.

Why the low reported availability? It could be a general belt-tightening or the lack of need of these tools given the decline in trials. Or it could be just a lack of demand by the lawyers in the firms. Perhaps some of the software previously purchased is now available in cloud-based applications. It’s disturbing since litigation software has many uses besides purely trial practice.

Relatedly, when asked what features of litigation software they liked the most 67% said they simply didn’t use any! This was up from 61 % last year and 55% the year before, which is surprising.

Of those lawyers who used trial presentation software, PowerPoint remained by far the most frequent software mentioned although other software is gaining ground. 80% of respondents reported using PowerPoint, 12% Summation (down from 21% last year), and only 12% Trial Pad.

Thirty-one percent of the firms reported having deposition management software available with most of those at large firms reported having this tool but only 13% of solos. Etrans remained the most popular (36%).

The respondents’ clear choice for the hosting of the software they used continued to be internal (18%); only 10% would prefer it to be in the cloud. But a very large percentage either had no preference, didn’t use it or just didn’t know.

Who Is Operating the Technology?

Who makes the courtroom technology work depends almost entirely on the size of the firm. While overall, 43% of the respondents operate their own technology in the courtroom (up from 35% last year), 58% of the solos do so and very few of the large firm lawyers so. Again, this could suggest an advantage to the big firms. On the other hand, since they are forced to operate the technology themselves, solos may be more nimble and flexible with technology in the courtroom. And trial technology may be getting and more intuitive to use.

Importantly, 41% of the respondents report having no technology support staff. As expected, there is a huge gap between small and solo shops (77-46% respectively) and large firms (almost all have support).

Electronic Filing and Documents

The frequency of electronic filings with court systems continues to increase and has clearly become the norm. Overall, 83% (versus 79% last year) of the respondents say they now file documents electronically with courts.

Respondents report that the number of courts that allow electronic filings and the number of courts that require it have slightly increased over last year.

The percentage of those who never receive requests for e-discovery fell slightly from 38% in 2015 to 36% in 2017 s year to 32% this year. The number of attorneys who never make e-discovery requests decreased from 42% in 2017 to 35% this year.

The number of firms involved in cases where the processing of e-discovery is necessary declined from 51% to 44%.

Review and Processing E-Discovery?

Thirty-eight percent of the respondents still use no sort of e-discovery review and case analysis solution, down the 44% of respondents who said they did not use it last year.

The primary tool used to review e-discovery materials remains keyword searching (80%, up significantly from last year). Few respondents use context analysis or predictive coding.

Perhaps this reflects more recognition of the existence of e-discovery, but a lack of understanding regarding the various tools.

Only 12% report using predictive coding to process or review e-discovery materials, a number consistent with last year. The lowest percentage of predictive coding use was with solos and the highest use was with bigger firms. The size of the case was the main reason lawyers did no use predictive coding but there were also significant concerns about cost and the validity of the process. Interestingly, 33% of respondents at firms of 500+ lawyers had concerns about this technology. Firms between 50-499 lawyers also had concerns, while only 5% of the solos did (down from 17% last year). Only 10% of the respondents claimed to be unfamiliar with the tool which is consistent with last year.Another interesting finding: 38% of the respondents never bother to perform any sort of early case assessment, up slightly from last year. 38% also claim not to use any e-discovery solution.

Very few of the respondents used lawyers outside the U.S. for e-discovery review (76% did not) or outside lawyers in the U.S. (83% did not). All of these numbers suggest that costs may still be higher for e-discovery review than they need to be.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/12/techreport-2018-litigation-and-tar/feed/0TECHREPORT 2018: Technology Traininghttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/12/techreport-2018-technology-training/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/12/techreport-2018-technology-training/#respondMon, 03 Dec 2018 16:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=9283Good technology training is only a web search away. According to this TECHREPORT, however, many attorneys are still unsure of how to take advantage of that.

The annual ABA TECHREPORT combines data from the annual Legal Technology Survey Report with expert analysis, observations, and predictions from leaders in the legal technology field. For the first time, we are bringing TECHREPORT to Law Technology Today for you. Every Monday we’ll be posting a new report from one of our experts, so stay tuned!

For roughly the past two decades, the ABA Legal Technology Survey Report has polled lawyers for their opinions about the legal technology options available to them. One of the areas investigated is access to and attitudes toward training for the technology that lawyers are using in their practice.

While a solid majority of respondents to the 2018 Survey (88.2%) reported being comfortable with their firm’s technology, they also appear to have lost ground regarding the availability of training in their firms. Only a slim majority of respondents (56.9%) indicated that there was technology training of any kind available at their firm. This is a marked decline from the 74.3% of respondents who responded affirmatively in 2017, 70.5% in 2016, and 67% in 2015.

Respondents have also backslid in their general view of the importance of receiving training on their firms’ technology tools. Overall, 81.9% of respondents indicated it was “very important” or “somewhat important” to receive training on their firms’ technology. However, this is a slight decrease from the previous year’s responses, when 83.4% responded this way and nearly identical to the responses to the 2016 Survey when 81.4% of respondents felt the same (43.4% responding “very important” and 38% responding “somewhat important”).

Overall, those responding that it was “not very important” or “not at all important,” to receive training on their firm’s technology were only 18.1% in the 2018 Survey, but this is 1.5% higher than the previous year’s responses.

While this slight decrease in the perceived importance of training might seem inconsequential, it should not be dismissed. Even at 18.1%, the percentage of lawyers who do not see the importance of getting training on the technology tools available to them is too high.

Whether these decreases in perceived importance are related to the reduced availability of training reported by respondents is not known.

Overall, the 2018 responses to the importance of receiving training on their firm’s technology break down like this:

On the positive side, a majority of respondents report that having to stay abreast of the benefits and risks of technology is part of their basic competency requirement (61.6%).

This closely mirrors the ABA’s 2012 adoption of Comment 8 to Rule 1.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct that states:

“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.”

Over the course of the ensuing six years, 31 states (62%) have adopted some form of this rule as part of their Rules of Professional Conduct.

Of all the lawyers surveyed about whether staying abreast of the benefits and risks of technology is part of their basic competency requirement, solo respondents are most likely to answer in the affirmative (64.5%, compared with 64% in 2017 and 60% in 2016). Respondents from firms of 2-9 attorneys were close behind (63.6%), while 60.4% of respondents from firms of 100+ (compared with 62% in 2017 and 44% in 2016), and 50% of respondents of 10-49 attorneys also indicated that this was a basic competency.

On the negative side, respondents to the 2018 Survey who were solo practitioners were more likely than average to respond that it was “not very important” to receive training on their firm’s technology (21.7% for solos vs. 14.6% of all respondents), and less likely to respond that it was “very important” or “somewhat important” than respondents overall.

Solo respondents were also more likely to respond that receiving such training is not important.

It’s not only troubling that solos reported a more negative attitude than the average toward the necessity of training (7.1% of solo respondents found this training to be “not at all important,” and 21.7% of solo respondents found it to be “not very important”), but that these opinions also mark a deterioration of attitudes from the 2017 Survey (when 5.7% of solo respondents found this training to be “not at all important,” and 19.0% of solo respondents found it to be “not very important”).

Interestingly, no respondents in the middle range of firm sizes (10-49 attorneys, 50-99 attorneys, or 100-499 attorneys) indicated that this training was “not at all important.”

On the contrary, respondents from all size firms (other than solos) were more likely to report that such training was “very important” or “somewhat important” than average.

Firms of 2-9 attorneys

40.9% — “Very important”

44.5% — “Somewhat important”

Firms of 10-49 attorneys

52.5% — “Very important”

34.4% — “Somewhat important”

Firms of 50-99 attorneys

59.4% — “Very important”

28.1% — “Somewhat important”

Firms of 100-499 attorneys

50.7% — “Very important”

43.7% — “Somewhat important”

Firms of 500+ attorneys

45.9% — “Very important”

41.0% — “Somewhat important”

Emerging technologies like blockchain and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are also catching lawyers’ attention. 72% of respondents expressed a favorable view of the importance of receiving training on these technologies. However, solo attorneys were most likely to view this training as “not at all important (6.8% versus the overall average response of 4.6%).

Generally, Attorneys Feel “Comfortable” Using Their Technology

When asked, “In general, how comfortable do you feel using your firm’s available technology?” 88.2% of all surveyed attorneys responded that they were comfortable. This breaks down to a slim majority (53.3%) of all respondents indicating that they were “very comfortable,” while an additional 34.9% indicated that they were “somewhat comfortable.”

As with other questions, digging a little deeper into the numbers gives us an interesting perspective. These percentages are slightly skewed (to the high side) by the prevalence of favorable responses from solo and small firm attorneys regarding their comfort level using their firm’s available technology. They were more likely than their larger firm counterparts to respond favorably.

Fifty-six percent of solo attorneys and 56.3% of attorneys from firms of 2-9 responded that they were “very comfortable” using their firm’s technology. That comfort level declines, however, the larger a firm gets:

Firms of 10-49 attorneys: 53.2%

Firms of 50-99 attorneys: 51.5%

Firms of 100-499 attorneys: 45.1%

Firms of 500+ attorneys: 42.6%

The 2018 Survey does not offer a way to know where the increased level of “comfort” in smaller firm respondents comes from. It could be that they are genuinely just more facile with the technology that they are using and therefore more comfortable with it, but the fact that they report significantly lower rates of access to training for their technology would not support that fact.

A more likely reason could be that those solo and small firm attorneys—like the general population as a whole—tend to inflate their abilities (in any area) when asked to assess themselves. In socio-psychological circles, this over-estimation of one’s own abilities is known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

In their research, social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University identified people’s general tendency to, “fail to adequately assess their level of competence—or specifically, their incompetence—at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else.” Generally, their research found:

The least competent performers inflate their abilities the most.

That the reason for the over-inflation seems to be ignorance, not arrogance.

That chronic self-beliefs, however inaccurate, underlie both people’s over and under-estimations of how well they’re doing.

More succinctly, people don’t know what they don’t know, and therefore think they know more than they do.

Could it be that solo and small firm attorneys are overestimating their “comfort” using technology at work because they do not have access to training and therefore “don’t know what they don’t know?” Conversely, could it also be that larger firm attorneys, who do have access to training, realize how much more there would be to learn to become proficient with their technology and therefore have a lower perception of their “comfort” using their technology?

The 2018 Survey structure does not give us a way to know the answer to those questions—but it is highly likely.

Who Is Getting Training

Overall, the 2018 Survey results indicate that just over half of respondents (56.9%) have any kind of technology training available.

This is a significant drop from previous years (74.3% in 2017 and 70.5% in 2016). The prevalence of training in larger firms skews the numbers—making them appear better than they are.

So, as low as that aggregate percentage may seem, the news is even worse for solo attorneys. Solos are less than half as likely to report having training available (25.6%) than the overall average (56.9%).

Generally, the larger the firm, the more likely technology training is to be available. It should come as no surprise that respondents from the largest firms (500+ attorneys) reported the highest percentage technology training availability (98.4%). Responses to the availability of technology training broke out as follows:

Solo attorneys: 25.6%

Firms of 2-9 attorneys: 53.4%

Firms of 10-49 attorneys: 83.1%

Firms of 50-99 attorneys: 97.0%

Firms of 100-499 attorneys: 94.4%

Firms of 500+ attorneys: 98.4%

Compared with previous years’ responses, solo practitioners appear to have lost significant ground in the availability of training. The 2018 Survey showed significantly higher percentages of those respondents indicating that they had no technology training available. In 2018, 71.5% of solos indicated they had no technology training available. In the 2017 Survey, 49.0% of solos indicated they had no technology training available and in the 2016 Survey, only 9.3% of solo practitioners responded that way.

The good news for these solo and small firm respondents who want training is that training may actually already be available to many of them—we’ll discuss where and how they should look for it later in this article.

Technology Issues: Who’s Affected May Surprise You

When asked “how often do technology-related problems negatively impact your productivity?”, 50.1% of all respondents responded “often” (6.6%) or “sometimes” (44.4%). Surprisingly, solo respondents were less likely than average (only 5.7% “often” and 42.9% “sometimes”) to suffer negative impacts from technical problems.

Respondents from the largest firms (500+ attorneys) were most likely to report suffering negative impacts from technology problems (13.1% of them responding “often”). Respondents from the largest firms were also the most likely to respond “seldom” to the same question (60.7%).

Once again, it may be that a lack of training leads solo and small firm attorneys to “not know what they don’t know” or not investigate more advanced features of the technology they are using. Not attempting to use those advanced features might lead to fewer “technology issues.” The structure of the 2018 Survey does not provide a way to discern that.

Where Do Attorneys Turn When They Need or Want to Learn About Technology?

For respondents who indicated that training was available at their firms, the 2018 Survey also asked, “Where do you turn first when you need or want to learn about technology?” Overall, the highest percentage of respondents (43.2%) indicated their IT departments were the first place they would turn. Since most solo attorneys and smaller firms are unlikely to have in-house IT departments, a closer look at the breakdown of responses in instructive.

Solo respondents and those practicing in firms of 2-9 attorneys indicated that the first place they turn to learn about technology are their IT departments. This is much less than the average (19.4% and 27.0% respectively). Respondents from larger firms were much more likely than average to indicate such (with 62.5% of respondents from firms of 50-99 attorneys, 73.1% of respondents from firms of 100-499 attorneys, and 68.3% of respondents from firms of 500+ attorneys responding this way).

The second most popular source respondents used to learn about technology was “Google or other search” (24.3%). However, solo and small firm respondents were significantly more likely than the average to indicate this as the first source they turn to (33.3% of solo respondents, 29.7% of respondents from firms of 2-9 attorneys, and 27.2% of respondents from firms of 10-49 attorneys responding in this way).

Only a small percentage of respondents indicated that a “vendor/manufacturer” (8.5%) or “peers” (9.1%) was the first place they turn to learn about technology.

“Bar associations” were cited less than half as often (4.1%) as being the first place that respondents turn to learn about technology.

Finding Available Training

A large majority of solo respondents (71.5%) and a high percentage of respondents from firms of 2-9 attorneys (42.6%) indicated that they have no technology training at their firms.

It is possible that some of those respondents who reported “no training” available at their firms may just not be finding training opportunities, because:

They might not be using technology in their practices at all and are not looking for training

They may have overestimated their skills using the technology (Dunning-Kruger They may be searching for training videos (or other resources) online but not finding them

The 2018 Survey structure does not give us a way to know which (if any) of these conditions apply to respondents.

However, remember that 33.3% of solo respondents who indicated that they did have training available at their firms also indicated that “Google or other search” was the first place they turn for information about technology. As for not having training available, assuming that a similar percentage (of 33.3%) applies to all solo respondents who might turn to Google or other search (to look at just one category), it is confounding to see that the 71.5% of solos attorneys responded that they did not have training available. It is, therefore, more likely that those attorneys are seeking training online, but are doing so ineffectively (by using “Google or other search”).

So then, if these lawyers are looking for training via “Google or other search,” why aren’t they finding these sources? It could be that their self-assessment of their own search skills leads them to conduct ineffective search engine searches that do not produce useful results.

In many cases, results of a search engine search for “training” and “software name” might return numerous links to paid or advertised third-party training options that crowd out the free or low-cost, vendor-supplied resources that are available. A search for “training,” “webinar,” or “tutorial” limited to the website of the technology’s manufacturer might prove more effective.

For more general (non-law-specific) software, attorneys might want to try the tutorials available from Lynda.com. The site offers thousands of video tutorials and practice exercises for various software, including Microsoft’s Word, Excel, and Powerpoint; Wordperfect; Quickbooks, and others. Subscriptions begin at $19.99/month. However, many public libraries offer their patrons free remote access to the entire library of Lynda.com’s educational materials, so lawyers should check their local library’s website to see if they already have access to this resource.

Conclusions

The purpose of this article is not to use the 2018 Survey results to argue that technology is a panacea to solve every problem a lawyer might encounter in their practice. Nor is it to make the claim that using technology in the practice of law does not come with its own difficulties that can affect a lawyer’s productivity. Despite those difficulties though, we are long past the time when it can be reasonably argued that a lawyer can provide effective representation to their clients without it.

The purpose of this article is to remind lawyers that the usefulness of any technology tool generally increases as their training in its proper use increases and that if they’re using technology in their practices (and they should be), then they should be getting training to use that technology to maximize their productivity and minimize the negative effects caused when struggling with their technology. Based on the 2018 Survey results, fewer attorneys are getting this message.

Technology training is also important because claiming ignorance of a particular technology as a defense for not implementing it—or implementing it incorrectly—will not protect lawyers from a potential ethics violation. This is especially true in the 36 jurisdictions that now require familiarity with “the risks and benefits associated with technology” as one of the measures of lawyer competence (based on the recent[ish] adoption of a new Comment 8 to the ABA’s Model Rule 1.1).

The good news is that, overall, a majority of lawyers believe that getting trained on the technology they are using in their firms is important.

The 2018 Survey makes it clear that the larger a firm, the more likely respondents are to indicate that technology training is available to them. This is a trend seen in previous years.

It is discouraging, however, to see this year’s precipitous drop in respondents reporting “technology training of any kind available at [their] firm,” as well as the low percentage of solo attorneys reporting having training available at all, in the 2018 Survey. This second drop is confounding because 71.2% of solo respondents indicated that it is “very important” or “somewhat important” to receive training on their firm’s technology, yet only slightly more than one-third of solo respondents (25.6%) indicate that technology training is available at their firm.

The 2018 Survey’s structure does not allow us to discern if these solo lawyers who report no technology training at their firms are not seeking out training or are just not finding training if they are seeking it out.

The fact that 87.6% of solo respondents indicate that they are “very comfortable” or “somewhat comfortable” “using [their] firm’s available technology” may give us an indicator that these respondents are overestimating their facility with the technology and underestimating their need for training.

Is it possible that those respondents indicated that they do not have technology training at their firms (40.0% of all respondents; 71.5% of solos) are not using technology at all or using very little? The structure of the survey does not give us a way to know this.

For those attorneys who may not be using technology in their practice, we recommend they go outside their comfort zone and attend technology conferences to learn what’s out there that would help them practice more efficiently. These non-technology using attorneys will hopefully gain insight at the technology conferences and will explore what technology they need to practice more efficiently (and competently) and then obtain the necessary training.

Lawyers must also learn to overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect that is likely coloring their own perceptions about their technology competence and understand that training would benefit them. Then, they would hopefully seek out educational resources that are already available to them (by conducting more effective Internet searches).

There’s so much free and low-cost technology training available from vendors and manufacturers, bar associations, CLE organizations, and other sources online that solos and small firms lawyers shouldn’t feel shut out of training despite their lack of an IT department and a big training budget. Yet, the 2018 Survey results tell us that many solos and small firm lawyers appear to not be taking advantage of this free and low-cost training—even though they are just a simple web search away.

]]>Before Steve Little decided to open his solo legal practice, SRL Law, PLLC, in Minneapolis, he knew he needed a practice-management system that was more efficient and cost-effective than the disjointed system used by the law firm he was leaving. That firm employed a small army of support staff to conduct legal research, manage casework, maintain calendars, keep track of court dates, log time and expenses, bill clients, file paperwork, and everything else. Steve was only going to be an army of one, so he needed all the help he could get. A hands-on presentation of Thomson Reuters Firm Central practice-management suite convinced him it might be exactly the kind of help he was looking for, and he’s been using it to run his successful practice ever since.

“When I learned that document management, legal research, and billing were all integrated into Firm Central, that interested me,” Steve recalls. “I wanted to have one program I could turn on in the morning and use.”

Steve wanted to spend as little time as possible on the administrative side of his business so that he could concentrate his attention and energy on getting new clients and serving them better.

“When I was using three different systems for case-file document management, billing, and legal research, it took a lot more time out of my day,” Steve said.

Steve’s legal practice is in the contract-intensive area of real estate and business law, so document-management capabilities are a top priority. Version control and tracking of documents exchanged back and forth multiple times was a process Steve knew he had to get a handle on.

“My old firm didn’t have practice management software,” which caused problems, Steve said. “If multiple attorneys worked on a document, brief, or memo, it was challenging and time-consuming to track all the changes and stay abreast of the most current version.”

Business Anytime, Anywhere

With Firm Central on his desktop, these issues are no longer a concern for Steve. Because it was developed with solo attorneys and small law firms in mind, Firm Central integrates everything a lawyer needs to manage their practice into a single, easy-to-use platform.

Furthermore, Firm Central is a cloud-based solution in which everything is stored automatically in a secure, encrypted environment accessible only to lawyers and their clients. And because it is cloud-based, Firm Central provides access to case files, research, billing—and everything else—24/7, on any device.

“Having it in the cloud, accessible from all my devices, has been really helpful to me,” Steve says. “In court, I don’t have to bring a briefcase full of documents, and I can access them faster on my iPad.”

Steve also likes the flexibility Firm Central gives him to work anytime, anywhere. “I could be on a beach in Bermuda and be as productive as I am in my physical office downtown,” he says. The mobile version of Firm Central is so well designed that “accessing Firm Central from my phone is just like being in my office.”

Firm Central’s easy setup, dedicated implementation team, and 24/7 tech support meant no outside IT person was required. Thomson Reuters gave him all the training and support he needed to get up and running, he says. But not a lot of training was needed.

“I got Firm Central on the first day I opened my practice,” Steve says. “I turned on my computer that morning and was able to start using it right away. It was pretty intuitive.”

Robust Features and Encrypted Sharing

Virtually every area of Steve’s practice can be accessed through the software, and the interface is designed to make the complexities of day-to-day legal work easier to manage. The robust Firm Central organizational and document management capabilities are among Steve’s favorite features. Not only is it easy to keep track of documents by matter and client, but the software also gives lawyers like Steve all kinds of time-saving options. “I really like that I can create separate folders for, say, pleadings—and then for filed pleadings,” Steve says. “When I open something that’s been accepted by the court, I just click save and it goes directly into the correct folder I select.” Legal research is another area where Firm Central saves Steve a great deal of time and effort. Firm Central is integrated directly with Thomson Reuters Westlaw, so the connection between specific casework and research is seamless.

“If I’m working on legal research in Westlaw and I see a case I like, I can directly save that case into the folder for my client in Firm Central,” Steve says.

Furthermore, since Firm Central has an encrypted sharing platform, exchanging documents and research with clients is easy and secure through the client portal. Time tracking and billing are another necessary evil that Firm Central deals with particularly well.

“With Firm Central, there’s a timer in the software, so if I’m working on a brief, I can keep track of how much time I’m spending on that particular project. Or when I get off the phone with someone, I can just type in the time,” Steve says.

When he needs to send a bill, the time spent on the client’s case is already recorded and automatically imported into their invoice. “I think my clients can tell the difference,” Steve says. “My billing statements are timely and they look professional. And the ability to send professionally created documents saves me and my clients so much time. I’m much more efficient.”

Save Time and Expenses

As a solo practitioner, the cost has always been one of Steve’s top concerns. He says he was initially afraid that Firm Central would be too expensive for him, but when he compared the cost to purchasing and running three separate programs, he realized that Firm Central would save him money.

And it has. In addition to the up-front cost savings, Steve estimates that using Firm Central saves him about 20 hours of administrative time each month—time he can spend working for clients, building new business, or just being with his family.

“Firm Central has cut my overhead costs by more than 50%,” Steve says. “It’s a great tool for solo practitioners. I can do everything myself, so I don’t need to hire staff.”

A Most Valuable Business Partner

Firm Central was designed specifically to help lawyers in solo practices and small firms manage their day-to-day challenges; a way to level the playing field against larger firms with deeper pockets and more resources. Time is a lawyer’s most precious resource, of course, and Firm Central helps lawyers like Steve make the most of theirs.

Steve started using Firm Central the day he hung out his shingle, and it has become his most valuable business partner. Not only does it save him time and money, but it also helps him be a better lawyer. With all his business processes—document management, research, time tracking, billing, calendaring, forms—integrated into a single, cloud-based platform that’s accessible 24/7 from any device, anywhere, Steve can focus more of his energy and attention on his clients. In turn, he’s able to serve them better. And better service, he knows, is the key to his ongoing success.

]]>https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/11/use-firm-central-to-manage-your-solo-practice/feed/0TECHREPORT 2018: Practice Managementhttps://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/11/techreport-2018-practice-management/
https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2018/11/techreport-2018-practice-management/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 16:00:00 +0000http://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/?p=9281Law firm technology has been around long enough now that attorneys know what is available. Find out what they're using and how they use it in this TECHREPORT.

The annual ABA TECHREPORT combines data from the annual Legal Technology Survey Report with expert analysis, observations, and predictions from leaders in the legal technology field. For the first time, we are bringing TECHREPORT to Law Technology Today for you. Every Monday we’ll be posting a new report from one of our experts, so stay tuned!

In last year’s TECHREPORT, we noted that the profession’s adoption of practice management tools had slowed to a crawl. After several years of increasing uptake, this year’s numbers confirm the narrative that a plateau has been reached for now. “Peak legal technology” is the order of the day, barring a sea change in demographics or a disrupting event.

Usage and Adoption of Practice Management Tools

Attorneys continue to use practice management software at a steady rate at firms of all sizes. Attorneys at solos and small law firms report usage at around 30% to 35%, which has held steady for several years. Among law firms larger than 10 lawyers, the high 62% usage among firms with 10-49 attorneys and 51% usage among firms with 100+ attorneys in 2016 were mere blips. The general trend has held steady at 33% and 22% respectively with little change over the last handful of years (disregarding the 2016 blips).

Most attorneys are satisfied with the practice management software they use, as 32% reported “very satisfied” with the features and functions therein and 61% reporting “somewhat satisfied,” for a total of 93% that were somewhat or more satisfied. This is not surprising. Practice management software offers a myriad of advantages over the old ways, including an efficient way to docket, bill, manage timelines, build contacts, and store documents within one application. It is also a gateway to a paperless practice.

With such high satisfaction levels, one can only speculate as to why the adoption of practice management software has plateaued. Is the inertia of the status quo (practicing without this technology) simply too much to overcome? Is the up-front cost in time and effort to change to a new way of practice too daunting? Presumably, given the steady usage numbers, practice management software does offer value for money.

Room for Improvement—and for Disruptors

The true one-stop shop is still missing. Some practice management software includes built-in accounting, some offer built-in timelines from local court rules, some have robust document management systems, and some have great collaboration tools. But not one has everything under one umbrella. There is room for improvement, and integration with other applications can range from smooth to rickety, with no standard for what “integration” truly means nor what levels of integration are appropriate. This leads to a common refrain from attorneys trying to figure out which is best for them: it is difficult to impossible to compare different practice management software given the lack of standards.

In the meantime, the public (“non-lawyers”) are catching up. Apps for legal tasks are made available for free or minimum charge. The market for legal services at the bottom end, previously unmet, are gaining traction to the point where there is likely an invasion into legal services provided at the higher (more expensive) end. This continues to put pressure on attorneys to provide efficient and cost-effective lawyering through technology like practice management software.

Managing Clients and Conflicts

In the absence of the one-size-fits-all solution, dedicated customer relationship management software (“CRM”), document management, and conflicts products are potentially easier to implement and they provide more robust solutions. Following the theme of this report, the use of these systems has remained steady, neither trending significantly up nor down.

Metadata Removal

Bucking the steady-ship trend, metadata removal software availability is slowly rising. This is good news as privacy and confidentiality have become bigger issues. With the implementation of GDPR best practices, it is perhaps only a matter of time before attorneys are expected to take steps like metadata removal to protect the privacy of their clients.

Tablets are Laptops are Tablets are Laptops

The line between tablets and laptops is blurring. The Microsoft Surface has steadily grown in availability at law firms every year since 2015, from 12% to a high of 22% in 2018. Competitors are popping up everywhere with tablets and attachable keyboards. Those not providing the power of a laptop within a tablet are likely going to see market share and usage fall.

Tablet use among attorneys at every firm size spiked in 2016, but it did not stick among solos and small firms (which peaked at 57% in 2016 and fell back down to 47% in 2018). Meanwhile, tablet use has increased markedly among large law firms, from a low of 32% in 2015 to a high of 53% in 2018 for firms of 100-499 attorneys. Firms of 500+ also peaked at 39% usage. The Apple iPad continues to dominate the scene, with 77% of respondents reporting it was available at their firms, followed by the Microsoft Surface (22%), the Samsung Galaxy (6% and falling every year), and the Amazon Kindle Fire (3%).

The usage of tablets among the large firms is interesting. Is it because large firm attorneys travel often and enjoy the portability of tablets? Is it the ease of use of conducting large trials and transactions on a tablet? Is it the growth of legal apps that can be run on a tablet? Is it the rise of tablets becoming the equivalent to laptops such as the Microsoft Surface? It certainly appears as though the trend will hold. The soothsayer here says don’t be surprised when tablets and laptops refer to the same thing, sooner rather than later.

Remote Access On The Rise

Remote access is slowly taking shape among solos and small firms. The anecdotal demand from millennials to be able to telecommute is showing up in the numbers, with usage among solos rising from 38% in 2015 to 46% in 2018, and from 58% in 2015 to 68% in 2018 among firms with 2-9 attorneys. About time!

Curiously, a downward trend in remote access for larger firms is showing, from a high of 87% in 2015 to a low of 79% in 2018 among attorneys of 10-49, and from a high of 94% in 2016 to a low of 88% in 2018. Perhaps while working remotely has high rewards, there is a limit to just how much work one can do outside of the office.

Fees and Time Management

A word on fees. Law firms continue to report hourly fees as the most popular (69%), followed by fixed fees (15%), contingent (11%), retainer (4%), and other (1%). This is almost identical to last year.

Despite the popular discussions surrounding the need and growth of alternative fee arrangements like fixed fees, this does not seem to be borne out by the numbers. Has the alternative fee revolution reached a plateau? Before speculation begins as to why, this is one to watch in the years to come.

In a nod to practicality, electronic billing software continues to trend upward among solos and small firms generally. This is no surprise as the benefits are indisputable. Both law firms and clients like accurate accounting, and electronic billing software allows for regular billing intervals which means happier clients (yes, clients like to know you are working on their file regularly and how much it’s costing them on a regular basis!).

Rules-based docketing has seen increased use among small firms, topping out at 40% in 2018. These are incredibly useful to keep deadlines in check. It is good to see that even amongst the biggest law firms, rules-based docketing remains steady (and has not declined), indicating the value in the software. Will solos step up in the next year?

Conclusion

With few exceptions, the use of technology has not taken any large steps in recent years. Even alternative fee billing has not seen a rise. Law firm technology has been around long enough now that attorneys know what is available. It seems attorneys that wanted to change and upgrade made the change, and those that didn’t have remained behind. Perhaps the onus falls on the producers as much as on the users: an iPad-like user-friendly interface is still sought out, a layman looking at the front page of a practice management or document management software may be more intimidated than impressed, and security and speed remain question marks among the uninitiated. The world keeps turning, though, and one can only assume that those who turn with it, by adapting the technology according to the market, will be less dizzy.

]]>The typical law firm deals with a constant stream of inquiries, yet only a portion of them actually result in billable work for the firm.

If that doesn’t sound familiar, consider this: in a recent survey we conducted of more than 1,300 legal consumers in the US, we identified that 57% faced a legal problem in the past two years that they did not pursue legally (whether it be going to court or filing a legal document)—meaning they either ignored the issue or dealt with it themselves outside of the legal system.

What’s even more shocking is that 68% of respondents spoke with, and 58% had a formal consultation with, a lawyer whom they did not hire.

This is concerning since over the past three years, ourLegal Trends Report—which looks at aggregated and anonymized data from tens of thousands of legal professionals—has consistently found that the average lawyer only dedicates approximately 2.4 hours of their day to billable work.

What’s eating up the rest of their working day? The majority of law firms dedicate significant time to finding new clients. In other words, in the ongoing effort to find new clients, lawyers spend time speaking with clients who never hire them—which ultimately hurts their ability to focus on revenue-generating tasks.

Getting to “Yes”

When we say that 68% of survey respondents spoke to a lawyer they never hired, it’s worth noting that not every client will be the right fit for a firm. A client’s issue may not align with the firm’s area of law. Or, their issue may not be suitable for legal action. But another very common issue is that even when it becomes clear they should take legal action, they never follow up.

There’s also no getting around the fact that communications and consultations with potential clients take time—and that these touch points are really about making sure the lawyer-client relationship is the right fit for both sides. And, sometimes getting to “no” is a better, more efficient outcome for everyone; the client feels taken care of, both sides have built a relationship, and the prospect knows the lawyer isn’t out to take just any case for the sake of money.

But getting to “yes” is even more ideal in helping address that 57% of consumers who don’t pursue their problems legally when it’s in their best interest to do so. (A related study conducted by the World Justice Project found that 77% of those who experience legal problems in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago don’t turn to an authority to resolve their problem.)

Clearly, the solution isn’t to avoid speaking with potential clients. The solution is to improve the overall quality of communications so that the client can get the information they need with the type of expediency that suggests the lawyer they’re working with is unquestionably efficient and organized. And, there’s no avoiding that speed is a factor here: According to our research, 67% of consumers look for a lawyer who responds to a phone call or email right away.

Delivering a more client-centered experience—by being more responsive and being more prepared for every client interaction—will help move a legitimate case forward (while also helping those without a case move on to other solutions).

To support the type of client-centered approach that’s needed in today’s law firm, many lawyers are implementing customer relationship management (CRM) software in their practices.

The Shift to More Client-centered Law Firms

According to the ABA 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report, CRM and remote access are the only communication software trends that haven’t seen any dip in the past four years, with CRM software showing a 41% adoption rate among respondents in 2018.

While 41% adoption may suggest a large portion of firms are focused in the right direction, 50% name Microsoft Outlook as their CRM tool. Although Outlook is a powerful tool for contact management, it falls significantly short of offering the functionality of a CRM software. (Dynamics would be the Microsoft offering of a CRM.)

What distinguishes CRM software from basic contact management?

A contact management program is basically a database of contact information. It keeps you organized and lets you access your information when you need it.

CRM software goes beyond contact management to help you manage the whole intake process—which in legal, is really a type of sales pipeline. Though, when we say “sales,” we aren’t suggesting that firms adopt the type of high-pressure, anything-goes tactics that might be common in other industries. Instead, for law firms, it means diligently managing every touch point to ensure expectations are met for everyone. When dealing with so many inquiries from prospective clients, it’s up to the law firm to ensure these inquiries don’t get lost or forgotten about.

CRM software ensures that you always know your next step to progress a relationship—helping ensure that both the prospect and the firm are clear on what the next steps are for a matter, and how it can be moved forward. CRM software can also streamline the process for gathering information on a matter, as well as organizing and scheduling upcoming meetings so that everyone has access to the most up-to-date information at all times.

Better Responsiveness Working in the Cloud

It’s worth highlighting that the strongest trend for communications software in the ABA 2018 Legal Technology Survey Report is the steady increase in remote work being performed through cloud-based software. It’s clear that there’s been a fundamental change to how lawyers make use of technology in their practice. Modern law firms are looking for more convenience, portability, and security—which are all key tenets of everything we do at Clio.

Consumer expectations are increasingly shaped by their experiences across every industry, and we believe that the future of the legal profession involves reimagining a more holistic client-centered experience. Delivering this experience means creating a law firm that’s hyper-efficient and organized so that lawyers can support their clients at every crucial moment.

Clio has always been the leader in cloud-based practice management, giving firms the ability to manage their case and billing workflows seamlessly and with less effort. As customer expectations evolve, we’re committed to building a thriving technological ecosystem that will drive new, research-based innovations in the interest of more client-centered legal experiences.

You can read more on the findings from our extensive consumer research—plus an in-depth analysis of law firm efficiencies and operations—in our 2018 Legal Trends Report.